Could the eyelash mark originate from Vienna ?

Gonzalo G · 8th October 2009, 01:39 AM

Personally, I would begin to question the supposedly and exclusively european origin of this kind of marks. Their presence in antique nepali weapons opens many questions. Maybe this is another of the so many myths created by western specialist in edged weapons. I don't think India needed so much occidental blades, or their 'prestigious' marks, and if those blades are present in indian swords is more due to their openess to experimentate than for true need of them. Openess other peoples didn't had. Unless we have hard evidence based on facts, and not a mere speculation, we cannot assume the origin of this kind of marks as a fact. Better, as Jens said, investigate it and present solid arguments. A good time-line comparison among this marks among oriental and occidental blades would be useful. What if this mark appears first in an older oriental blade?
Regards

Gonzalo

Jim McDougall · 8th October 2009, 04:00 AM

Very well said comments gentlemen.

Gonzalo, as always good points of contention. So far the evidence I have seen, and discovered in the years I have researched these markings, show them occurring on 15th century European weapons, as seen in the page David has shown from "Armi Bianchi Italiene" . In this book there are numerous other examples with variations of these markings.

India does not reflect European influences until the Portuguese arrivals, and then slowly began to use European blades with Mahratta trade. This is of course the origin of the so called phirangi blade. I'm not sure of you have read any of the trademarks thread discussions or my previous post here, but virtually all references concerning weapons and thier markings hold the European origins of these sickle marks. It would take some time to add the cites and references for all the research that has been done from the 19th century arms writers including Baron DeCosson, Archibald Campbell, and the later Bashford Dean, Sir Guy Laking,Sir James Mann and later Dr. Lloyd Cabot Briggs, to name a few, who have made profound studies of blade markings on European swords. The Wallace Collection, catalogued by Sir James Mann in 1962 has numerous examples of German and Italian blades with variations of these sickle marks from a time span of several centuries.

It is not a question of 'needing' the European blades, as much as a matter of convenience and interest in European trade, primarily brought on by the Mahratta merchants. In Central India, Hyder Ali brought in European weapons and forces so was quite familiar with these blades from Germany in the late 18th century.

I think we have seen a preponderance of evidence for these markings being European, and as I have tried to present on many occasions the details of this proof. I think one of the things that presents difficulty is when the content of what is presented is not read before questions are asked or contentions made, agreed as what has been noted by Jens.

I have yet to see any evidence of these markings appearing in any of the cultural mediums described, India, Afghanistan or the Caucusus, before the 18th century, though the markings are known in European regions as noted from the 15th, appearing in Styria and Solingen by the mid to late 17th.

The appearance of the sickle marks on Nepalese weapons, in this case the kukris shown here by Spiral is actually quite surprising. I honestly have not seen these appearing on kukris before, and would suggest that this is most likely an affectation added well into the British Raj period and long after the famed Gurkha units were formed. While these are 'antique' weapons from these Nepalese regiments, they are certainly 19th century if not later and do not suggest any ancient existence nor particular Nepalese symbolism that would indicate origins of these sickle marks in Nepal nor India.

In short, there is nothing Eurocentric about the fact that these sickle marks have origins on European blades, and as I have previously emphasized, were originally likely guild marks, much as other such 'trade guild' markings used in medieval times in Europe. This is not speculation, but documented fact.
While it is well known that there are numerous myths in earlier writings on weapons, most of this derives from popular collectors lore and typically not from scholars, though there admittedly are exceptions and certain errors inevitable. I firmly believe that documented evidence from well provenanced weapons and supported literature from the scholars, some of whom I have mentioned, stands as evidence rather than myth.

The idea that these markings might have originated in India or Nepal as shown by thier presence on weapons that are typically not known prior to at least the 17th century such as the tulwar, whose earlier origins remain unclear, or the kukri, which was virtually unknown until the conflicts of the late 18th century however, does seem speculative. The only examples of these sickle marks on these weapons of the Subcontinent, Central Asia, the Caucusus, Nepal or any other native weapons I am aware of are primarily of the 19th century, with perhaps a few occasions in the 18th.

Best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 8th October 2009, 04:59 PM

Sometimes when you write, the wrong people feel hurt. I am sorry for this as it was not my intention. My intention was to get collectors out of the easy chair, and go to the book shelf or the library - and start reading about the things they are collecting.
It is easy to ask a question and read the answer on the forum, but you will only get a pin pointed answer, and not a broader knowledge about the item in question - and that I find is a pity.
Jens

spiral · 8th October 2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Sometimes when you write, the wrong people feel hurt. I am sorry for this as it was not my intention. My intention was to get collectors out of the easy chair, and go to the book shelf or the library - and start reading about the things they are collecting.
It is easy to ask a question and read the answer on the forum, but you will only get a pin pointed answer, and not a broader knowledge about the item in question - and that I find is a pity.
Jens

Thankyou Jens , I didnt feel hurt but wasnt sure who your comment was aimed at as it was unspecfic so I answeared from where I stood.

i do understand wat you mean Jens, for many years I anseared 2 or 3 emails a week fotr requests for information about kukri, most I answeared out of shared intrest untill I finaly realised how rude & ignorant many of those emails actualy were, they were essentialy demands for information without a please, could you, or even a thankyou involved.

Today I still repley to polite or what appear to be genuinly interested people but the rude & ignorant who presume my duty in life is to answear there kukri questians can "whistle in the wind."

best regards to you Jens,

Jonathan AKA Spiral

Jens Nordlunde · 8th October 2009, 09:41 PM

Thank you Spiral for your answer, you nailed one of the things - another is that members of the forum must seek informations elsewhere other than on the forum, or the forum will die out when chaps like you, Jim and a few others stops writing - it may take some time, as some of us are rather tough, but we may stop writing on the forum.
There are informations out there, but you will have to compare them, and decide in which ones you believe, as they can differ a lot.
Jens

Jim McDougall · 10th October 2009, 07:25 PM

I really dont mind spending hours researching, compiling and writing, but it would be nice to know the material was read. It is intended for those who are serious about learning on weapons, and in hopes for discussion whether in rebuttal, support or agreement.

David is someone whom I consider a serious student on arms and armour, who actually collects, examines, observes and ponders weaponry, and always enters into discussions with astute observations or constructive comments.

This thread posting these markings was a soundly placed and honest effort to initiate discussion and learn more on these markings. I added material I have compiled for many years in support and to comprehensively present what is known on these blade markings.

I appreciate the photos of markings on ethnographic weapons that were placed as I had asked, and thank Brian and Spriral for adding them.

I very well understand the statements made by Jens, also a serious collector, scholar and researcher on weapons, which were intended to encourage the discussion that David had sought for this topic. Those of us who know Jens well understood his words, which expressed his disappointment in active participation in various instances overall, not specifically on this thread.

I also understand the comments added by others, although well written, but drifting far from the purpose and topic on this thread, which was intended to discuss blade markings.

In my earlier posts, I encouraged participants here to view the material and discussion on European Armoury in an effort to align the importance of these and other European blade markings which are found on ethnographic weapons.

I regret that my posts clearly fell short of thier intention as they appear to not have been read, much as the entire purpose of this thread has been lost at this point. In my opinion, this sort of fouled interaction is altogether a reflection of one of the great shortcomings in the serious study of arms.
I would hope, that out of respect for David, and in solidarity that those out there who do care about studies in weapons might continue here on the original course.

Regardless, David I thank you for posting this and for your always helpful efforts and keen insight. You are an inspiration that I hope will be followed by others.

All very best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 10th October 2009, 09:24 PM

Hi Jim,

You are very polite when writing your post, but no one, especially those who know the tone you usually write in, can doubt that you are deeply disappointed.

I agree with you, just as I agree with Spiral, the forum members takes it more and more for granted that they can ask questions, and expect an answer – preferably right away. Few knows how long time it has taken to find the information’s, or don’t care – as many just don’t answer back, not even with a ‘thank you’.

This leads me to another question. Why has so many members left the forum within the last few years? I know some of the members, who has left, and that is becourse of the above reasons – and they will not return – which is a pity for the forum, as many of them were very knowledgeable.

So should this attitude go on, the forum will have fewer and fewer writing members in the future – especially those with some knowledge.

Jens

Amuk Murugul · 26th October 2009, 06:07 AM

Hullo everybody

,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

.......
i do understand wat you mean Jens, for many years I anseared 2 or 3 emails a week fotr requests for information about kukri, most I answeared out of shared intrest untill I finaly realised how rude & ignorant many of those emails actualy were, they were essentialy demands for information without a please, could you, or even a thankyou involved.

Today I still repley to polite or what appear to be genuinly interested people but the rude & ignorant who presume my duty in life is to answear there kukri questians can "whistle in the wind." ....

Jonathan AKA Spiral

Spiral, rest assured that you are not alone in this. There are also many who for one reason or another, have tired of being engaged in discussion/debate (not just in this forum) about certain topics. It gives them a feeling of DEJA VU ...DEJA vu ... deja vu... . (Especially those people whose beliefs may run contrary to the mainstream). ...But rather than adopting 'the philosophy of the Oak', they've opted for 'the philosophy of the Bamboo'...

Best,

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2009, 02:25 AM

Hi Gonzalo,
Thank you very much for your very clearly well thought out and eloquently worded comments in response to my posts and comments. There is absolutely no need to apoligize for any delays in response as I am well aware of your circumstances in computer access and admire your tenacity in your efforts.
Actually I dont believe there is, as you note, anything disrespectful about polemic approaches to any presented opinions or discussion reviewing stated material on any topic. I completely agree that the venerable scholars that have provided the benchmarks for our pursuits in the serious study of historic weapons and thier development should be admired and respected. Further, it is clear that, as you well put, new research often reveals that previously held views are sometimes proven incorrect.

Simply put, I agree that it is good to question theories, hypothesis or observations in discussion in order to reaffirm thier validity and the elements of evidence in support of them. Conversely, if questions are presented, they too should be supported by evidence that constructively offers some proof that these are somehow of questionable validity.

Certainly you have noted some comments I have made that perhaps may have been better worded, such as my note regarding the work of highly respected scholars as 'well documented evidence'. I agree that academically I should not hold these works as 'evidence', however, at a personal level, and having known a number of these men at that level, you can understand how respect might dictate such thoughts. I am sure that the late Mr. Norman, who was indeed one of them, would welcome such documented information to correct any errors in his work.

I believe that we here are all interested in advancing our knowledge on the history and development of arms and armour, and I am ever amazed at the wonderful weapons, material and observations presented here. I honestly welcome all entries in discussion, but prefer to remain on topic in constructively developing information that better helps us in evaluating evidence and observations.

I return your kind comments regarding my posts and will say that your input here is equally helpful to myself and others, and as always, the object is to learn together, as you know. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed expected, for there to be some degree of dispute in discussions or debates. What is important is that here we are gentlemen, as you clearly represent, and proceed accordingly to continue advancing our ever growing base of knowledge.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. LOL!! Save me a spot there in the Cambridge Library!!! I think I need to be there too!!

Gonzalo G · 27th October 2009, 08:06 AM

Jim, thank you very much for your kind words and your understanding. And though I am not good in making some stetements, as I am too direct, I will try to be of some use with my modest participations.
My best regards

Gonzalo

8th October 2009, 04:00 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Very well said comments gentlemen. Gonzalo, as always good points of contention. So far the evidence I have seen, and discovered in the years I have researched these markings, show them occurring on 15th century European weapons, as seen in the page David has shown from "Armi Bianchi Italiene" . In this book there are numerous other examples with variations of these markings. India does not reflect European influences until the Portuguese arrivals, and then slowly began to use European blades with Mahratta trade. This is of course the origin of the so called phirangi blade. I'm not sure of you have read any of the trademarks thread discussions or my previous post here, but virtually all references concerning weapons and thier markings hold the European origins of these sickle marks. It would take some time to add the cites and references for all the research that has been done from the 19th century arms writers including Baron DeCosson, Archibald Campbell, and the later Bashford Dean, Sir Guy Laking,Sir James Mann and later Dr. Lloyd Cabot Briggs, to name a few, who have made profound studies of blade markings on European swords. The Wallace Collection, catalogued by Sir James Mann in 1962 has numerous examples of German and Italian blades with variations of these sickle marks from a time span of several centuries. It is not a question of 'needing' the European blades, as much as a matter of convenience and interest in European trade, primarily brought on by the Mahratta merchants. In Central India, Hyder Ali brought in European weapons and forces so was quite familiar with these blades from Germany in the late 18th century. I think we have seen a preponderance of evidence for these markings being European, and as I have tried to present on many occasions the details of this proof. I think one of the things that presents difficulty is when the content of what is presented is not read before questions are asked or contentions made, agreed as what has been noted by Jens. I have yet to see any evidence of these markings appearing in any of the cultural mediums described, India, Afghanistan or the Caucusus, before the 18th century, though the markings are known in European regions as noted from the 15th, appearing in Styria and Solingen by the mid to late 17th. The appearance of the sickle marks on Nepalese weapons, in this case the kukris shown here by Spiral is actually quite surprising. I honestly have not seen these appearing on kukris before, and would suggest that this is most likely an affectation added well into the British Raj period and long after the famed Gurkha units were formed. While these are 'antique' weapons from these Nepalese regiments, they are certainly 19th century if not later and do not suggest any ancient existence nor particular Nepalese symbolism that would indicate origins of these sickle marks in Nepal nor India. In short, there is nothing Eurocentric about the fact that these sickle marks have origins on European blades, and as I have previously emphasized, were originally likely guild marks, much as other such 'trade guild' markings used in medieval times in Europe. This is not speculation, but documented fact. While it is well known that there are numerous myths in earlier writings on weapons, most of this derives from popular collectors lore and typically not from scholars, though there admittedly are exceptions and certain errors inevitable. I firmly believe that documented evidence from well provenanced weapons and supported literature from the scholars, some of whom I have mentioned, stands as evidence rather than myth. The idea that these markings might have originated in India or Nepal as shown by thier presence on weapons that are typically not known prior to at least the 17th century such as the tulwar, whose earlier origins remain unclear, or the kukri, which was virtually unknown until the conflicts of the late 18th century however, does seem speculative. The only examples of these sickle marks on these weapons of the Subcontinent, Central Asia, the Caucusus, Nepal or any other native weapons I am aware of are primarily of the 19th century, with perhaps a few occasions in the 18th. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 8th October 2009 at 02:24 PM. Reason: added info and pertinant material for continuity

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

8th October 2009, 01:39 AM	#1
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Personally, I would begin to question the supposedly and exclusively european origin of this kind of marks. Their presence in antique nepali weapons opens many questions. Maybe this is another of the so many myths created by western specialist in edged weapons. I don't think India needed so much occidental blades, or their 'prestigious' marks, and if those blades are present in indian swords is more due to their openess to experimentate than for true need of them. Openess other peoples didn't had. Unless we have hard evidence based on facts, and not a mere speculation, we cannot assume the origin of this kind of marks as a fact. Better, as Jens said, investigate it and present solid arguments. A good time-line comparison among this marks among oriental and occidental blades would be useful. What if this mark appears first in an older oriental blade? Regards Gonzalo

8th October 2009, 04:59 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sometimes when you write, the wrong people feel hurt. I am sorry for this as it was not my intention. My intention was to get collectors out of the easy chair, and go to the book shelf or the library - and start reading about the things they are collecting. It is easy to ask a question and read the answer on the forum, but you will only get a pin pointed answer, and not a broader knowledge about the item in question - and that I find is a pity. Jens

8th October 2009, 09:41 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Spiral for your answer, you nailed one of the things - another is that members of the forum must seek informations elsewhere other than on the forum, or the forum will die out when chaps like you, Jim and a few others stops writing - it may take some time, as some of us are rather tough, but we may stop writing on the forum. There are informations out there, but you will have to compare them, and decide in which ones you believe, as they can differ a lot. Jens

10th October 2009, 07:25 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	I really dont mind spending hours researching, compiling and writing, but it would be nice to know the material was read. It is intended for those who are serious about learning on weapons, and in hopes for discussion whether in rebuttal, support or agreement. David is someone whom I consider a serious student on arms and armour, who actually collects, examines, observes and ponders weaponry, and always enters into discussions with astute observations or constructive comments. This thread posting these markings was a soundly placed and honest effort to initiate discussion and learn more on these markings. I added material I have compiled for many years in support and to comprehensively present what is known on these blade markings. I appreciate the photos of markings on ethnographic weapons that were placed as I had asked, and thank Brian and Spriral for adding them. I very well understand the statements made by Jens, also a serious collector, scholar and researcher on weapons, which were intended to encourage the discussion that David had sought for this topic. Those of us who know Jens well understood his words, which expressed his disappointment in active participation in various instances overall, not specifically on this thread. I also understand the comments added by others, although well written, but drifting far from the purpose and topic on this thread, which was intended to discuss blade markings. In my earlier posts, I encouraged participants here to view the material and discussion on European Armoury in an effort to align the importance of these and other European blade markings which are found on ethnographic weapons. I regret that my posts clearly fell short of thier intention as they appear to not have been read, much as the entire purpose of this thread has been lost at this point. In my opinion, this sort of fouled interaction is altogether a reflection of one of the great shortcomings in the serious study of arms. I would hope, that out of respect for David, and in solidarity that those out there who do care about studies in weapons might continue here on the original course. Regardless, David I thank you for posting this and for your always helpful efforts and keen insight. You are an inspiration that I hope will be followed by others. All very best regards, Jim

10th October 2009, 09:24 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, You are very polite when writing your post, but no one, especially those who know the tone you usually write in, can doubt that you are deeply disappointed. I agree with you, just as I agree with Spiral, the forum members takes it more and more for granted that they can ask questions, and expect an answer – preferably right away. Few knows how long time it has taken to find the information’s, or don’t care – as many just don’t answer back, not even with a ‘thank you’. This leads me to another question. Why has so many members left the forum within the last few years? I know some of the members, who has left, and that is becourse of the above reasons – and they will not return – which is a pity for the forum, as many of them were very knowledgeable. So should this attitude go on, the forum will have fewer and fewer writing members in the future – especially those with some knowledge. Jens

27th October 2009, 02:25 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Hi Gonzalo, Thank you very much for your very clearly well thought out and eloquently worded comments in response to my posts and comments. There is absolutely no need to apoligize for any delays in response as I am well aware of your circumstances in computer access and admire your tenacity in your efforts. Actually I dont believe there is, as you note, anything disrespectful about polemic approaches to any presented opinions or discussion reviewing stated material on any topic. I completely agree that the venerable scholars that have provided the benchmarks for our pursuits in the serious study of historic weapons and thier development should be admired and respected. Further, it is clear that, as you well put, new research often reveals that previously held views are sometimes proven incorrect. Simply put, I agree that it is good to question theories, hypothesis or observations in discussion in order to reaffirm thier validity and the elements of evidence in support of them. Conversely, if questions are presented, they too should be supported by evidence that constructively offers some proof that these are somehow of questionable validity. Certainly you have noted some comments I have made that perhaps may have been better worded, such as my note regarding the work of highly respected scholars as 'well documented evidence'. I agree that academically I should not hold these works as 'evidence', however, at a personal level, and having known a number of these men at that level, you can understand how respect might dictate such thoughts. I am sure that the late Mr. Norman, who was indeed one of them, would welcome such documented information to correct any errors in his work. I believe that we here are all interested in advancing our knowledge on the history and development of arms and armour, and I am ever amazed at the wonderful weapons, material and observations presented here. I honestly welcome all entries in discussion, but prefer to remain on topic in constructively developing information that better helps us in evaluating evidence and observations. I return your kind comments regarding my posts and will say that your input here is equally helpful to myself and others, and as always, the object is to learn together, as you know. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed expected, for there to be some degree of dispute in discussions or debates. What is important is that here we are gentlemen, as you clearly represent, and proceed accordingly to continue advancing our ever growing base of knowledge. All very best regards, Jim P.S. LOL!! Save me a spot there in the Cambridge Library!!! I think I need to be there too!!

27th October 2009, 08:06 AM	#10
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Jim, thank you very much for your kind words and your understanding. And though I am not good in making some stetements, as I am too direct, I will try to be of some use with my modest participations. My best regards Gonzalo