Indian sword blades

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rick and Ian,

I am 72’’ small, I don’t know how many feet that makes, and my hand is 4’’ across, so Ian is right, we come in all sizes (I think it is English inches, but I am not quite sure).

BTW can anyone tell me, why English and American feet, inches are different? It would be easier if everyone on this forum used metres, centimetres and millimetres, then measurers given on the forum would be the same – now one can’t be sure if the measurers given are in English feet, inches or in American, as nothing is noted – just 3’ 4’’ – sigh.

Hi Brian,

You are right these measurers were used in shipbuilding, architecture, bridge building and in a lot of other places, like maybe carpet making, or they would not have been able to say ‘so and so many knots pr finger’. Only here it was not grains, but feet – Indian feet – but the ground structure of this measure must have been grains. It is the first time I have seen grains mentioned when it comes to measures, so it is interesting to see one of their smaller measures being mentioned. It is mentioned that the tip of the index finger should be equivalent to eight grains (2.3-2.5 cm), the problem occurs if a hands width is mentioned/used, as not all the fingers have the same size, or maybe they had a standard for a hand (but if they had, why say fifty fingers, why not say so and so many hands?), like they must have had for a foot. If they had not had measures like that, a building like Taj Mahal would never have been build, nor would all the forts and, and, and…

[Rick]

Hi Jens , you are six feet tall ( 6' ) .

In England and America the inch is the same ; 12 inches (symbol " ) make one foot (symbol ' ) .

I have to use a conversion table for meters , centimeters , and millimeters as I suppose you must have to also for feet and inches .

I am by no means any kind of a mathemetician so the whole concept makes my brain melt .

And now we talk of grains of unknown origin and size .

Now I must ask a question ; we are reading from a Muslim manuscript, yes ?

Is this a Muslim translation from a Hindu manuscript or an arbitrary Muslim ideal ?


I find myself further confused by the term 'sword' as a sword is not just a blade alone but incorporates a hilt to make it functional ; so when we talk about this subject of length is it really just the blade or is this just an assumption because nowhere have I seen the term blade used in the original quote .

Addendum :

I did a little googling on Hindu weights and measures :
http://tinyurl.com/bgxxf

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rich, you area beaty, and I will read the link to morrow. Jens

[Jim McDougall]

This is, as always with Jens' observations and queries on arms & armour, completely fascinating! and noting the source for this material being Dr. Elgood's brilliant work "Hindu Arms and Ritual" , extremely well expected.
Robert Elgood has approached the study of Indian arms in the long overdue perspective in which they have needed to be viewed, with the understanding of the religious and ethnographic symbolism and belief that explains them.
Until this important work, most of the weapons of India have been viewed as nearly standardized forms such as the tulwar, khanda, katar and so on without any consideration for the decorative elements, motif and auspicious symbolism imbued in these weapons. The many hybrids and innovative variants of weapon forms well known from Indian armouries remain mostly unexplained curiosities which have generated considerable western speculation concerning thier use. It would seem that in many cases, such explanation may lie in symbolism rather than pragmatic application.

Concerning the measurements as presented in the book, and in the outstanding discussion and observations posted on this thread, I would like to add the following, which I found in the book "The Wonder that was India" by Arthur Basham ( London, 1954) on p.503:

8 yava (barleycorns)= 1 angula (fingers breadth, 3/4")
12 angulas = 1 vitasti (span, 9")

I recall some time ago researching the Khevsurs of the remote regions of the Caucusus in Georgia, and Richard Halliburton's observations on his visit to their secluded enclaves in the 1930's ("Seven League Boots"). He describes the popularity among the men of duelling, often as sport, but occasionally very deadly in matters of dispute. In the sporting event the warriors wore mail, helmets and fought with sword and buckler. If one participant was accidentally wounded, the wound was measured with barley seeds, and the compensation to be paid computed to be paid in cows by such measure.
There was considerable trade and contact with northern regions of India from early times, and many influences seem to have diffused from there. Possibly this rather ancient form of measuring was one of them?

In the importance of length and other important features discussed concerning the auspicious significance applied in these important swords, I am wondering how the use of 'phirangi' or foreign trade blades was viewed in them. Would the 'pratistha' ritual described by Elgood on p.105 be considered effective in imbuing the required transubstantiation (some word eh! ) or would these blades
have been considered less than acceptible?

Best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the link, interesting to read about the people living on the subcontinent so many years ago, and about their advanced knowledge.
The book is, as mentioned before, ’Nujum al-‘Ulum’ and here is what Robert Elgood writes about it. ‘This Bijapur manuscript dated 1570 in three places, is a well-written document that considers weapons’ lore, predominately Hindu.’
And a bit later something interesting. ‘Much of the information regarding the casting of horoscopes for the various types of weapons is omitted, being largely repetitious, though the author’s obsessive concern with planetary influences should be noted.’
It is well known that Indian weapons often were decorated with talismanic signs, but it is new to me, that they also made horoscopes for the different kind of weapons.
I think the term ‘sword’, here must refer to the blade without the hilt, but it is not quite clear.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the nice words, and thanks for your research.
It is very interesting that you found this 8 yava (barleycorns)= 1 angula (fingers breadth, 3/4")
12 angulas = 1 vitasti (span, 9"), as we here have both the corns and the finger width, and what more is, it fits very well. ¾ inch by 4 fingers = 3 inch = 7.8 cm. Does it say from where the author Arthur Basham has these information’s?
I have tried to measure some tulwar hilts, and the room for the hand varies from 7 cm to 8 cm. This will give a firm, but not a strained grip.
In the notes to his book Elgood writes: ‘Agba’ (Arabic) = angul (Hindi) = angusht (Persian), all meaning a finger’s width. In south-east Asia the thumb width is used to measure keris blades to decide if they are auspicious.’

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
The references I found in Basham's book were in the appendix, and were presented without specific reference or footnotes. It is interesting to note in his introduction he thanks numerous institutions and individuals, including interestingly a Mr. P.Rawson! and the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. Presumably the material was derived from the undoubted wealth of trade records and documents held in the library of that institution.

A few comments concerning the ongoing discussion about the notably small grip size on many Indian swords. There has been long standing debate and speculation about the established blade feature on Indian tulwar blades known as the 'Indian ricasso', which is the flat unsharpened section of the blade edge nearest the hilt. It has long been suggested that this feature was intended specifically for the placement of the swordsmans finger wrapped around the quillon to reinforce and better direct his cut impact. It seems that the use of the sword in Indian combat typically did not involve blade to blade contact, and parrying depended on the shield or guarding with the armored forearm. If armored gauntlets were worn by warriors, would the finger actually be jeapordized in combat situations where such blade to blade contact would not have been necessarily practiced?
In Italian swordsmanship, which eventually influenced considerably that of Europe, the placement of the finger wrapped around quillons was well established and directly effected the development of the hilt with finger guards and eventually the complex rapier hilt. It would seem that a number of influences from Italian edged weapons exist in the weapons and uses in India, as well of course as from many colonial powers via trade.

If the finger was not positioned in this manner, why would the tulwar blades consistantly display this ricasso feature?

Also, still wondering more on the use of trade blades on auspiciously qualified swords.

As always, lots more research to be done!!

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Ahah! Just found this item of interest in the files, from:
"A Late 15th Century Italian Sword" by Anthony North ("The Connoisseur, Dec. 1975, p.239):
Discussing Moroccan swords described in "Les Poignards et les Sabres Marocains" ( Hesperis, Tome XXVI, 1939, p.1), by Charles Buttin, Mr. North notes that "...the placing of the index finger around the base of the blade when holding the sword was a technique shown on a number of Spanish and Italian paintings. A striking feature of the sword which forms the subject of this article is the comparitively short grip. It can only be held satisfactorily if the grip is held by three fingers and a thumb, the last three fingers fitting into the recesses provided, the thumb supporting the top of the grip, and the forefinger placed around the base of the blade, a section being cut away from the edge to allow for this, hence the need for the ring guard to prevent the opponents blade injuring the exposed finger. The advantage of using the sword this way is that the point can be used as well as the edge".

I think this reference is interesting because as previously noted there were considerable contacts between these spheres via trade, particularly with the Portuguese as well as with Venice. Since the European weapons clearly had such impact on Indian weaponry , it would seem that fencing techniques would have been equally observed. Since the tulwar is used as mentioned primarily as a slashing weapon and parries were the business of the shield, the quillons on the tulwar are essentially vestigial. Therefore, it would seem that a gauntleted finger wrapped around the quillon would be quite likely.
The sword described in the North article is actually an Italian sabre that appears essentially identical in many ways, especially the hilt structure, to the nimcha of Morocco.

Possibly this information may be useful in further consideration on the hilt size of these Indian swords. It would be interesting also to consider whether the khanda with developed 'basket hilt' had equally small grips or hilt size, as this hilt typically carried straight European trade blades and its use was obviously entirely different than that employed with the tulwar. The example I have I can hold quite comfortably.

Best regards,
Jim