Сlassification of Indian swords.

Jim McDougall · 10th November 2022, 07:21 PM

While to be sure, Egerton and Stone set the pace for describing Indian arms, whether correct or entirely incorrect, the terms became the lexicon for writing on these weapons over the next century.
Then came Rawson as he catalogued the huge Victoria & Albert collections and pretty much followed the earlier writings, but with certain limited adjustments.
Followed by Pant (1980) who decides to 'correct' Rawson on many counts, but adds to the confusion with his own perspectives.
His attempts to regionalize and add dynastic terms to certain hilts only add more confusion to the conundrum of weapon terms in India.

This melange of terms has been the character of description we have all muddled through these years in discussions, pretty much the 'Tower of Babel' syndrome in many cases.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

10th November 2022, 07:21 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	While to be sure, Egerton and Stone set the pace for describing Indian arms, whether correct or entirely incorrect, the terms became the lexicon for writing on these weapons over the next century. Then came Rawson as he catalogued the huge Victoria & Albert collections and pretty much followed the earlier writings, but with certain limited adjustments. Followed by Pant (1980) who decides to 'correct' Rawson on many counts, but adds to the confusion with his own perspectives. His attempts to regionalize and add dynastic terms to certain hilts only add more confusion to the conundrum of weapon terms in India. This melange of terms has been the character of description we have all muddled through these years in discussions, pretty much the 'Tower of Babel' syndrome in many cases.