Tulwar handles on e-bay

[ariel]

There are literally dozen of Tulwar handles on e-bay: day in and day out.

All look old, most are simple, but quite a few have traces of silvery decoration.
About a third of them have no saucer-like pommel.

This epidemics started about 3-4 years ago and is not abating.

I am wondering: where are the blades? What is the reason for such an abundance of old handles? Why no pommels?

Any inside information or just a supposition?


Thanks for enlightening me.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel,
Someone once said, I have forgotten whom and when, that in the armouruíes many swords were not put together - for fear for an uprise! So they should only be assembled should a war be close! Sounds strange to me, as they were in a guarded armoury.
The missing disc on so many hilts is a big question mark to me as well, but someone (Tilly?) wrote that it had something to do with the hand size. I cant answer thais one, but to me it sounds very strange that a rather big number of these hilts should all of a 'sudden' turn up on the market.
I never visit e-bay, so I dont follow what is going on there.

[Jim McDougall]

In accord with Jens' note here, it seems to me that armouries were often the place where swords were assembled as required for rank and file, and perhaps even other categories. We all are well acquainted with the fact that blades were typically a separate commodity obtained through various means. Meanwhile, hilts, particularly tulwar hilts in India, were produced often en masse and distributed sometimes widely to other areas where often local decoration may be added.

I recall many years ago Jens mentioning this suggestion of tulwar hilts being stored unmounted so as not to furnish serviceable swords readily in case of insurgence, however that may have simply been presumed by British officials as these arsenals were inspected during the Raj.

It does seem that just as stockpiles of blades have often been discovered, such case might be with tulwar hilts in some degree as these as mentioned were often produced (particularly in Rajasthan centers) and distributed to other regions.

The case for hilts being dismantled for either valuable decoration or precious stones obviously is well known, but that does not sound particularly like the situation with the examples in question.

The pommel disc dilemma is another which has defied any plausible conclusion, just as the hand size lore pertaining to Indian hilts. It does seem that a removable disc option could have been feasible, but that is far from proven in most cases. It does seem I have seen tulwar style hilts which were without the disc (examples from Northwest Frontier regions) but cannot say whether they had been removed or never were there in the first place. It was said once in conversation to me that size of hands in Afghan areas tended to be larger, but that sounded a bit arbitrary I admit.

[ariel]

The story of separate storage of handles and blades and the alleged reason behind it goes back to Fernando's recollection of his conversation with Daenhart who, while in India, allegedly heard it from a Raja of one of the Northern principalities ( name and location not mentioned) who told him the story and showed ( or was willing to show) separate storage places. It can be found in the Archives of this Forum.

I was unsuccessful in finding another source, but have no reason to disbelieve either informant.

If anyone here has good contacts with Daenhart, it might be possible to get additional information.

Many examples on e-bay still have mastique inside.

Tirry had a single example of a pommel-less handle, but contemporary e-bay is chock full of them, all coming from India.

Quoting Churchill, "It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. "

[A. G. Maisey]

Taking a trip back to Birmingham, England between about 1958 and 1970, a major, very well known UK antique weapons dealer was using the mechanical damascus and wootz blades from Indian tulwars to create blades for well made but very fake Indian daggers.

At that time there was no internet and no international exchange of information, these daggers appeared in auction houses all over the world, they appeared in the catalogues of reputable dealers, they now rest in old collections.

When the Indian craftsmen caught on to what those Evil Englishmen were doing --- well, goodness, gracious me, they short-circuited the process and began turning out even better daggers than the Englishmen did. These Indian productions are still floating around and occasionally will be seen in most unexpected places.

I wonder what happened to all the hilts from those tulwars that were cut up to make daggers?

People tend to forget just how cheap tulwars were in the 1970's and 1980's. In the early 1980's I could buy Indian tulwars from dealers in Australia for prices varying from $5 to $25. Not masterpieces to be sure, but good, solid weapons with well made functional blades.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the missing blades in the original question, I remember reading somewhere on this forum that after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, thousands of Tulwar blades were destroyed by the British troops, many by being dumped into the ocean.

May this be at least a part of the answer to the original question?!

[Pukka Bundook]

It would be very nice to find a cache of old and good blades somewhere.
I fear though, that at least part of the answer is not good;

Some years ago I had dealings with a very reliable chap un in Rajasthan who sent me a few hilts, and showed me photos of many more, and a lot of them had blade stubs present.
Some of these I purchased as his prices were very reasonable and to my horror on receiving them, I found the blades had been freshly broken off!
There is no doubt about this, as the break was still shiny metal whereas the remaining blade surface was rusted.
I enquired about this, and he seemed rather reticent. On pressing him further, all he would say is that he had hilts with blades still attached for sale as well.
I think there are two parts to his answer;
One, many more hilts can be sold as some areas of the world have restrictions on blades, and
two, probably to him, a rusted blade is nearly worthless and therefore can be discarded and money still made on the hilt.
A good friend reminded me recently, that in India anything can be purchased, it all comes down to money. generally, the Western idea of interest in and value of antiques is not widely understood. it is Us that appear a little odd to them, but are quite happy to cash -in on our "Odness"!
I know this reply is unpalatable, but this is at least the reason in part.

I did press him to Not break off any more blades just for the hilts.
After all, a blade can be heated a little and soften the resin to extract the blade without too much trouble, but breaking the blade is quicker yet. (sadly)

Richard.

This gent also has hilts for sale on Ebay at times.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

One, many more hilts can be sold as some areas of the world have restrictions on blades, and
two, probably to him, a rusted blade is nearly worthless and therefore can be discarded and money still made on the hilt.

Very interesting information! And yes, this can be the explanation as to why there are so many Tulwar hilts on sale.

However, the reason as to why the blades were removed is not because "some areas of the world have restrictions on blades" as US, Europe and Australia all allow the sale of antique swords without any restrictions. But the problem might be India itself as the law in India is prohibiting trading larger blades that are sharpened. I found this out when I purchased some recently made "Mughal" daggers and they were all delivered unsharpened to avoid the above mentioned legal restrictions.

And unfortunately the old rusted blade that can be discarded can be Wootz and worh a small fortune.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Marius,
When you write about the weapons dumped at sea, I think you are thinking of when the Muhamedan Coorgs chopped the English magistrate down on his veranda in 1884. At that time more than 15'000 weapons were collected and dropped at sea - only few were allowed to enter into museums.
Otherwise the English mostly melted the blades down.
I dont know how comon it was, then, to keep loose hilts and loose blades, but in Memories of the Jaypore Exhibition 1884 Hendley shows five or six loose hilts, so maybe they did this to a certain extend.

Richard,
I too dont understand why they dont remove the blade, why they have to break it? Maybe it has something to do with the weapon laws in India, or that it is easier to send - as the weapon is shorter?
I dont really know, but it is a very strange thing to do, as they would get more money if the blade was intact.

Does anyone know how the white arms law in India is?

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Marius,

Does anyone know how the white arms law in India is?

Hello Jens,

I have been told that any sharp blade longer than 9" is considered a weapon and strictly prohibited in India. That's why all the newly made replicas have a dull edge and that's one reason why I couldn't find a single genuine sword at any of the antique dealers I have seen.

However, this is anecdotal and I didn't check the Indian legislation myself.


As with regards to the swords dumped in the sea, I don't know anything more than a vague memory about reading somewhere here on the forum about such an event, and it might be the one you mentioned.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems not too long ago, it may have been posted here, there were a number of historically valuable very old Indian swords, including khandas and patissa forms. These had blades cut off about 1/3 down from hilt. They were well patinated, and sold in an 'as is' lot in an auction.
While no provenance was noted, it would seem these may have been in a small arsenal or store of weapons, and as they were important traditional arms, their retention may have been allowed if they were neutralized.

This is contrary to the outcome in the well known larger armouries where select weapons were held aside but the bulk were destroyed as scrap .

The items being dumped at sea were described in Robert Elgood's book on Islamic firearms but reference not handy at the moment.

[kahnjar1]

One other possibility, which has not been mentioned above if I read correctly, is that these (or at least some) are modern made and aged copies. I have an Indian friend who has said to me that I should NOT buy anything from India described as "old" or "antique" unless I have watertight provenance. His comment was that India is the new China in terms of copies. This of course is not necessarily an all encompassing statement, but simply that extreme care should be taken when buying "old" items.
It should also perhaps be noted that there are, from time to time, many "old" and "antique" powder flasks being advertised from India, "made by" such well known makers as Hawksley etc.

Stu

[ariel]

OK, guys, additional information.
I contacted Fernando and he was unbelievably helpful.
He sent me an English translation of p.189 from Rainer Daehnhardts book "Men, Swords and Tomatos" ( the latter is a Portugese slang for "Balls") as well as his old post here about his conversation with RD post book reading.
Here they are:

Daehnhardt's book:
''' The main charateristic of this arm is little known, but rather interesting. Apart from individual arms that were manufactured for high rank personalities, more simple tulwars were also produced, in large quantities, for the Sovereigns arsenals. Invasions, popular insubordinations and palatial revolutions were very frequent. Few were the Sovereigns that dyed of natural causes. The state of war between ones and others was a frequente situation. In this atmosphere it became obvious that the possession and access to the arsenals were a preocupation of the greatest priority. A system was invented that impeached the possibility of using an Indian arsenal from one moment to the other. The handles of tulwars were built in metal ( usually iron ), joining guard, grip and pommel in one only piece, which doesn't happen in the majority of white weapons of other origins, where all these components were separated one from eachother. As tulwars handles were one only part, it became easy to join all these in one arsenal ( we are talking, in round numbers, in the order of the one hundred thousand handles ), and build a tower where these could be well kept with "seven keys" ( my commas , for a Portuguese figure of speech ). In another tower, distant from the first one, the respective blades were kept. When a sovereign decided to invade a neighbour country or prepare himself to defend his own, such event would be known within months of antecipation, which allowed for the mounting of the blades in their handles. Such blades had a short tang, which was neither peened, screwed, or stuck by a pin. To couple the blade with the grip, the late was turned upsidown, pouring in into his hollow part heated pitch, therefore liquid, as the blade was inserted. Once the pith cooled down, the blade would be fixed enough for battle, during years. In case it started to oscilate, the fixing system could allways be repeated. A strategic Sovereign would know how much time he needed to mount his army weapons and, taking precaution, had his arsenals ready in due time for the distribution of tulwars. In case of a mutiny or a palatial revolution, there was no time to mount the tulwars, in a manner that the arsenals were relatively protected from improper utilization.'''

Fernando's follow-up message:
Hi Ariel,

I was precisely answering your first email...my email server got stuck.

Yes, this was a two part story.
First, and as you already spotted, the text copied from page 189 of the said book Men Swords and Tomatos (read 'balls').
And as this has generated some skepticism, namely from the side of one such 'Spiral', i have visited Daehnhardt and raised the problem. His answered is contained in a post i submitted in a later thread, as follows:


... I have visited Rainer Daehnhardt shops in Lisbon, and i had in mind to ask him to coment on some parts of his book that have been considered discusseable.
Concerning the tulwars being stored in separate places, he stil assumes what he has written in the book. But i have learnt that he was referring to a specific case, and not to generality. In one of his (three?) visits to India, around 1970, he met a certain Maharaja in the north whom, at time of visiting his arsenal, asked him whether he wanted to see the blades first, or the hilts. For the case, they were kept in two towers, located about one kilometer away from each other.
The reason explained for such attitude was the one we already know.
He said ( i didn't ask him ) that the Maharaja's name was complex and dificult to memorize ... "Bija" something or the like...

Best wishes
Fernando


Thanks a lot, Fernando!!!!!

[fernando]

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando/Ariel, very well done, and thank you very much for the translation.
It seems to me, that keeping the hilts and the blades apart, was a question, which Rainer Daehnhardt should have been digging a bit more into - a pity he didn't.
This 'habit' of keeping hilts and blade seperat, could be due to, how much the Maharaja trusted his employees, and the people he was ruling over.
I feel sure, that had it been general, people like Egerton, Hendley, Kipling and others, living there and commenting on armouries would have mentioned it, as the habit, as far as I know, is very far form the European way to do it - and so, such a habit, must have been very strange to them.

[ariel]

I am with you .

These missives were not intended to be a final, unassailable "truth".

The issue was raised as to the origin of this information, and here it is. Nothing more.
Each one here is free to accept the idea or to reject it. If additional sources become available, they should be presented here.


Going back, we may find potential explanations for the plethora of handles and the paucity of blades.
The absence of dish pommels is still a mystery.

[Travis Canaday]

Hello to all,

This is my first post and I would like to introduce myself and throw my hat into this conversation. Although my current knowledge is quite limited in regards to South Asian arms, my favorite swords are tulwars. I can thank Matt Easton for planting this seed and ebay for letting me get my hands on some of these swords with my rather meager budget.

As far as why are all these hilts without blades on ebay, I just assumed it is because of the old tradition in India of hilts and blades being easily interchangeable. While an old sword blade could be made into something useful quickly, an old hilt would just get tossed aside. In regards to this "epidemic" of tulwar hilts on ebay as Ariel refers to it; I think folks just realized rather than just let these old things rust away in the shed, some westerner will pay thirty bucks for it. I am referring to all these real antique, but junky (often broken) tulwar hilts on ebay. They don't seem to be doing the fake old stuff racket the way the Chinese do so often on ebay. These cheap hilts often have a missing disk and/or a broken langet.

In regards to all the missing disks on many of the hilts, it is simply because they are worn out old junk. I just bought a tulwar from an American seller with the disk missing from the hilt because I like the stout old blade that came with it. It definitely had a disk at one point (long ago), but these parts do seem to be the first part that breaks. I plan on replacing the hilt with a different one purchased on ebay from India. A really nice one which I will attach using a traditional Laksha based cutler's resin. Another tulwar I have is completely solid except for a wiggle in the disk. I think this is just a common problem with these mass produced "munitions" level hilts.

In the future I plan to post pictures of my tulwars and the re-hilting process to share and request knowledge and opinions.

Cheers!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

...These missives were not intended to be a final, unassailable "truth".
The issue was raised as to the origin of this information, and here it is. Nothing more.
Each one here is free to accept the idea or to reject it...

Exactly.
In fact, when i pasted my post reflecting Mr. Daehnhardt's narration on this subject, i saw no need to transcribe in the text a paragraph with my own comment on it, which was:
Naturaly this is a facultative situation, nobody has to beleive in it.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...5&postcount=19

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

...It seems to me, that keeping the hilts and the blades apart, was a question, which Rainer Daehnhardt should have been digging a bit more into - a pity he didn't.
This 'habit' of keeping hilts and blade seperat, could be due to, how much the Maharaja trusted his employees, and the people he was ruling over...

Apparently there was nothing further to dig, at least as far as he was concerned, which i think he has put it in detail and very clear.

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I feel sure, that had it been general, people like Egerton, Hendley, Kipling and others, living there and commenting on armouries would have mentioned it, as the habit, as far as I know, is very far form the European way to do it - and so, such a habit, must have been very strange to them...

Also we may read that, in my checking with him about such particularity, he admitted that, the way he has put things in his book, might be seen as a general habit but, having to be precise, he assumed that, as far as he could assure, this occurred with a particular Raja, for the quoted reasons. If there were more sovereings acting with the same behaviour, who knows ? India is as large as a sub continent; perhaps too large for one to say he has seen it all.
But again ... we are all free to digest it or not .

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I feel sure, that had it been general, people like Egerton, Hendley, Kipling and others, living there and commenting on armouries would have mentioned it, as the habit, as far as I know, is very far form the European way to do it - and so, such a habit, must have been very strange to them.

Are you sure that Lord Egerton ever been in India?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Are you sure that Lord Egerton ever been in India?

HUH????

"...while in India Lord Egerton collected, studied and observed with the inspired interest of a student collector. The odd arms of India were fast becoming obsolete and he seized the opportunity to record all be could.."
from the foreward in his 1880 book.

Are you suggesting he was not?

[Mercenary]

"there was none available, nor any information about Indian weapons and their manufacture, except that which was to be found in books of travel, or in the noticed scattered through Oriental magazines" - in India in 1855?
Where was Lord Egerton? How long? Was he doing any research except through "books of travel" and "Oriental magazines"? I can not find anything about his life in India. I will try more...

[Jim McDougall]

Actually it is good to question our resources, and I like the notion of pursuing it together. So while you check further so will I, and it would be great if others out there might add their views and findings if they choose to join. I don't think anyone I know has the exposure to resources on Indian history that Jens has thoroughly perused through the many years Ive known him.
Meanwhile, might I know the source of the quote you cite on the paucity of material on Indian weapons c. 1855? I do not doubt that being the case, as in Great Britain's conquest and occupation of Indian regions with the advent of the East India Co., it seems the weapons were perceived more as curiosities and not seriously studied nor catalogued prior to Egerton's work.

Apparantly, according to the reference from Egerton's book, this was intended to be a catalog for collections at the museum at South Kensington.
It seems that some of the other subsequent references like Hendley, the items were observed at durbars and other major events in India.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Meanwhile, might I know the source of the quote you cite on the paucity of material on Indian weapons c. 1855?

It is in the beginning of the Introduction of his book: "When in 1855 I began to form a collection of arms in India I found the want of a book to assist me; there was none...".
In India in 1855 there was a lot of opportunities to collect not only collections of arms but a plenty very adequate information about it. I think he was not travelling across India for years ... to put it mildly.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Mercenary, and as you note, that is written by Lord Egerton in his book .
It does seem that Lord Wilbrahim Egerton (1832-1909) was a conservative politician in England and in the House of Commons 1858-1883.
As noted he did assemble his collection from 1855 through 1880, and it is now apparently in the Queens Park Art Gallery in Manchester.

As also noted, the situation for the collection and study of Indian arms and antiquities was dire in the 19th century, The museum (as it were) was primarily artifacts and various arms and curiosities crammed into areas and rooms next to East India House and library on Leadenhall St in South Kensington. It was more a warehouse accepting gifts and bequests and more stored than displayed. There was no particular order and a guidebook to London in 1851 described the place as squalid and crammed.

Coincidentally, the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London stirred new interest in India's culture in aspects such as material culture and ethnographica beyond the exotica seen in the old 'museum' which had been regarded as macabre and vulgar.

The holdings of the museum became essentially 'homeless' when East India House was demolished in 1863, and finally were placed in cramped quarters in the India office and by 1875 housed in rooms in South Kensington (now Victoria & Albert Museum). There had been misgivings however as England had become disenchanted with India, and the India office wished to dispose
of its collections, finally dissolving them and dispersing in 1879.*
* He notes this his introduction.


Robert Elgood (2004, p.11) notes the dearth of information on Indian arms in these times except the article by Walhouse ("The Old Tanjore Armoury" M.J.Walhouse, 'The Indian Antiquary' Aug. 1879, pp192-96) and that Walhouse had observed the removal of items there in 1863. He notes further that later arms writers such as Egerton (1880) and Holstein (1931) drew their information from this single source .

In the Egerton reprint of 1968, curiously the introduction written by the oriental armour sage H. Russell Robinson is the source in which it is stated , "...while in India", noting Egerton's enthusiasm and observation.
However, in the same publication, notes by Col. Yule describe his editing of the spellings and transliterations at the request of Lord Egerton, reveal that the Egerton's entries describing names of weapons and places they were from came from entries in the records of the INDIA MUSEUM.
Egerton himself notes that he was relying on collections in England in his study in his introduction.


When looking into Richard Burton's "Book of the Sword" (1884) I was surprised to find little mention of weapons of India, nor of Egerton, Walhouse other than some notes on metallurgy.

It would appear that Egerton's interest in Indian arms was more anomalous than realized, and at the time he compiled his venerable work, he indeed took from sources in the diminished and dispersing collections from this 'museum'. He also apparently relied on the Walhouse material and probably other items from journals such as The Indian Antiquary.

While he seems not to have actually gone to India, it does seem he had considerable contact with many who had, and it would seem accurately described notations in his sources. His compiled classifications and notes certainly have for the most part stood the test of time and profound new research over a century since.

[stenoyab]

Interesting thread, I am most happy that I was not the only one to find the hilts interesting in their own right. And in some ways easier to display, forming quiet an aesthetically pleasing display.

On the whole I find the hilts and blades to be untouched, I think some with a freshly cut short blade are where they have shortened them to sell/ship, as its easier to sell/ship the stub of a blade, then sell/ship a rusty old broken 2/3 length blade.

Sadly they are making new tulwar hilts, they also sometimes heavily restore old hilts or make them up from parts of several donor hilts. As with any collecting its always buyer beware.

[ariel]

Egerton's book consists essentially of 2 parts.

The main one is a catalog of collection of the old India House, showing systematic groupings of weapons that came to England over many years from other sources. These are presented as careful drawings. The attribution was based on somebody else's notes and inevitably contained errors.

For example, #332 in Plate IX is an Ottoman yataghan and ( likely) Arabian Shafra ( #348) grouped together with Nepalese arms. Likely, they were COLLECTED in Nepal and Egerton fully relied on the information from an unknown visitor there.

Plate XIV ( "Arms of Sindh") presents a classical Afghani Choora ( #624). Interestingly, its actual description states that it was collected in Banu (formerly Dhulipnagar, subsequently Edwardsabad), a town in the Pahtunhwa province of contemporary Western Pakistan, right at the Eastern opening of the Khyber Pass.

The second, a smaller, part of the book is a personal Egerton Collection: as opposed to the first one the items are actually photographed while hung on walls. This one is interesting from the point of view of the current discussion. Whereas most of the examples were acquired by Egerton from other British collections ( mostly of Colonel Hamilton) and European sales, there is a large number labeled as " Bought at Delhi, 1855". Was it the time of the alleged trip to India mentioned by Robinson?

Other than this flimsy hint I could not find any mention of actual trip to India in several biographies of Lord Egerton.

[fernando]

Meaning to say that there is a great probability that Lord Wilbrahim Egerton has never seen things in loco and all that he wrote about was what he had at hand, here in the West. A bit of a disenchantment, i figure

[Mercenary]

Many thanks to all.
I suppose Lord Egerton bought weapons when he was in India in 1855 (he was 23 years old) like many others at that time, but to learn and describe it he started after the travel. I did not see in his book any information similar to the information from first hand (from the Indians). Anyway he is great researcher and thanks him a lot.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems that there is no biographical data on Lord Egerton beyond his political and peerage status, not even much family data other than the hugely complex pedigree.
It does seem quite possible, perhaps even likely, he may have gone to India as noted c. 1855 (by 1858 he was securely in the British political scene in England). In that time he may have become fascinated with the weaponry which could have inspired his collecting and cataloging of these weapon forms. His command of the objects seems far too detailed for someone simply working from loosely described items in a cluttered array of arms in stored holdings.
Still we can only assume this to be the case, but as noted, we owe him gratitude for his contribution with his benchmark of arms study.

It seems incredible that in the biographical data on line, absolutely no mention is made of this monumental achievement. Clearly his peerage and political career weighed far more heavily than a study of arms from India, in which there was little interest. As I noted earlier, in his study on swords in 1884, Burton obviously had no interest in those of India as no mention in this otherwise reasonably comprehensive book is made of them as far as contemporary forms.

I have often wondered if Burton ever knew, or knew of Egerton and his book, which was published four years before Burton's. In Egertons work, the weapons of Sind are included, and Burton had been there in 1875, yet he makes no mention of any of them, however he does spend 6 pages in ancient Indian history and classic weaponry. His comments are derisive in that he notes that all Hindu arms and armour are described as attributed to supernatural causes and scoffs at such descriptions as well as the work of Professor Oppert (1880).

[Lee]

Mr. Roy Elvis mentioned in his Timonium Ethnographic Arms presentation this past Saturday that many of the tulwar hilts with cut-away blades may have come from the armory at Thanjour (Thanjavur) in southern India. He related that at some point in the 19th century the (obsolete) weapons from the armory were dumped into a disused water storage structure on the palace grounds. Following a change in administration, these were retrieved with the best going into a local museum and other better examples being acquired by a gentleman whose name I failed to capture. The bulk were sent intended for recycling of the metal, but many were covertly retained except that the blades were cut away - likely due to the legal restrictions noted above.

Perhaps another attendee will better remember or has recorded that part of the presentation and can clarify on this. Mr. Elvis has generously consented to make his PowerPoint file with its embedded notes available to the community and also hopes to release a book on the topic of southern Indian arms later this year.