hi jens,
there is always a chance that this could be a makers mark and not an armoury mark. if we are placing this in the latter part of the 19thC, which i feel is a safe bet, then it is the time of the exhibitions (london, paris and the many durbars which displayed the arts of the time to the british 'visitors'). so, there is no reason why the bladesmith would not sign his work in the same manner as you hilt maker (ie a hidden mark). earlier makers marks were more substantial but maybe towards the latter days, the blades were indeed showpieces and so were signed in a different way. i think this is as plausable a theory as an armouries mark. yes, we do have a benchmark for armouries signing their inventory in such a way (marks along the spine) but maybe we shouldnt assume so quickly. also, your blade is only uneven because your are comparing it to even examples (which we can do nowadays). its still a fantastic bit of work that would have really impressed the buyer at the time, whether he was english or a local.
quote
' if a museum has hilt labelled ‘Jodhpur’ we can’t be sure that it was also made there. To me this suggests that the most reliable source we have are books like Hendley’s, Watt’s and others written at the time, and for good measure, the pieces the museums have should be used for comparison.,
i am sure you are aware that i take both museum descriptions and book references as leads, and never as reliable sources. i question absolutely everything, sometimes a little too much. in the end, there can be no real proof, just opinion and so both our opinions are based on speculation and so either can be right (or both can be wrong). the world of firearms has been studied to a higher level than that of white arms and claude martin's legacy left in lucknow has been well documented. pieces do exist with 'typical' lucknow decoration that are believed to come from his vast personal armoury. again, you can argue that these may have been assembled in lucknow but enamelled elsewhere but you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you can never move on to further discussion. i am happy to label all my arguments as speculation, as i am not an academic and dont feel the need to justify my opinion. your hilt seems of lucknow style to me, except the pommel (which is completely 'un-lucknow'). this means that you may well be right, and the artist may have taken his influence from lucknow, as well as other places.
you can try and pigeon-hole certain style (especially jeypore and lucknow) or enamelling but as you say, there can always be an argument that it could hail from a different region. I am not convinced your hilt is lucknow at all, due to the pommel.
Question – if you look at the pommel and scrutinise it well, can you say it is 100% made by the same hand as the rest of the hilt? (in your opinion of course). I say this because those drawings I mentioned hinted at a collection of parts that an artist assembled as a portfolio, which allowed the patron to choose a hilt and choose the pommel as well (maybe) what if the hilt was already made and the pommel was chosen due to personal taste. Just a wild guess.
also, you cannot take watt too literally, nor hendley as, although they are as reliable an argument as you can find, i am convinced there is more to be found. the 'faded in' colours was not predominately bhuj, as this came from the basse taille technique learnt from the europeans. they stepped the thickness of enamelling to give a distinct contrast. this was perfected in lucknow and it is believed to have been brought in by martin and his european influence.
zebrowski shows a large hookah base on pg 85 of his book on decorative arts. the picture doesnt show it, but this is 18thC enamelling at its best and the petals are faded out in the manner that you mention. maybe this isnt clear from the photo (i know you have the book) but it is so, as the piece is owned by a friend of mine and i know it well. this piece is more than likely lucknow and if you ignore the apparent lucknow range of colours, and compare it to the other pieces shown in that chapter, you will see a strong similarity in the style of decoration, the flowers, the way the animals are drawn, their slender necks and small heads etc.
again, you can still argue that all these pieces came from the same place but maybe not lucknow but the evidence lends itself towards there and so my opinon sways that way.
again, your hilt may be different as the pommel begs other questions but i have always found that the answers (to my questions anyway) tend to lie in comparative iconography, and not in an event written near the time. remember, you only know what was written, and not what was omiitted. i wish egerton wrote down everything he knew (and hendley for that matter) but they didnt. they wrote a book and included material that was relevent for that particular study.
i am helping a friend with a quest of his own with lord kitchener. he never wrote a book at all, but was around at the same time as the giants mentioned above. however, he was a collector with a particular passion for high quality wootz. his collection remains and both you an i know that his taste was high and we have seen his pieces, and so we can imagine his knowledge was good as well (no one could have formed that collection without knowledge).
we have recently found that he did actually make a lengthy study of wootz, which included replicating the process to perfection himself. he must have written this down, even if for his own use and so we now have a potential thorough study of wootz, written in the late 19thC by an man who spend a large part of his life in india studying it from those that made it. we are tracing all routes to find this study and are hoping that it does actually exist.
all i am saying is that watt, egerton, irving and hendley are all fabulous reference, but we can never assume there wasnt more. also, i am aware of hendley and egertons passion for indian decorative arts, and irvings passion for military history, but what about watt. we know he headed an exhibition in 1903, with hendley on the commitee, but did he know his stuff? the book is well written, but as an exhibition guide. i have a number of exhibition guides that are very basic, and there is always a possibility that the book was written by lifting information from various sources and compiling it into the catalogue. i know hendley spent his life researching but i know nothing of watt. i am not knocking him, as its a great book but......
or, maybe i am just going into one as you hinted i take museum references too literally
reality check and time to climb down off my stage!