You guys are cracking me up with all these photos of spiky things.
It seems that the prevailing wisdom here is that if we can prove that there really was were spiky armor (and walls and balls) in India at the time we can prove
what, exactly, about the kora presented here???
I find it amazing that this image of the "High Executioner" in his spiked armor is creating so much controversy here.
FACT: This image of the "High Executioner" was indeed published in
The Wide World Magazine edition of
June, 1898. So i am sorry Oliver, your source for this photo is simply wrong. It may have been printed later in National Geographic and purported to be from the 1903 Delhi Durbar, but that information would be completely incorrect, barring the possibility of a time a traveling photographer
. There is just no way that it could have been taken at the Delhi Durbar in 1903. Ariel started this whole Durbar red herring early on in this thread due to what i can only suspect was a misunderstanding of what was presented in Oliver's book and it has, IMVHO, squashed any real analysis of this kora ever since, becoming little more than a rematch for old adversaries to trade barbs and sarcasm. I have now looked at many very interesting photos of these Durbar spectacles and read all the offerings of speculation from all sides and have still not seen one single shred of evidence that could possibly link this kora to that historic event, either as a ceremonial weapon carried in processions or even as a cheap souvenir bought in one of the bazaars that would be surrounding a grand Durbar.
Look, i realize this is not an academic, scholarly forum, despite the fact that we do indeed have academics and scholars in our membership. But this whole Durbar thing is just and incredible flight of fancy as far as i can tell. Speculation is fine, but it needs some basis of justification. Instead we are spending our time debating a photo of a guy in a porcupine suit of armor and trying to connect it falsely to the Delhi Durbar as some kind of proof that this kora could still be a ceremonial weapon from the same Durbar that this executioner photo is NOT from because if it is (which it is NOT) then it somehow proves that cheap, decorative weapons might also be used in ceremonies at the Durbar??? Welcome to bizarre world.
Let me remind everyone of the what Oliver
did write when he appeared briefly in this thread.
"Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous."
"Durbar weapons are usually very well made..." It is amazing to me that some people could then latch onto the "but not always" and use that as some justification that this kora could possible be anything other than a wall hanger.
I must say that this thread has been very entertaining and in many ways informative, but i do feel that it has failed in it's obligation to inform the original poster anything of much use about the kora he brought forward for discussion.