Poisoned pearls

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd January 2005, 09:53 AM

Hi Jim,

It may be like you say, or it may not. Like Hendley also writes: ‘In close combat a katar can be most fatal’. As he was a military surgeon, I guess that he knew what he was writing about, but when it came to the wounds a katar could make, but also when it came to the poison. Maybe he rather thought than knew about the poisoned pearls.

Regards

Jens

B.I · 3rd January 2005, 12:21 PM

hi jens and jim,
the ones i have handled, although some were of good fighting form, they seem to show an artisan showing his art to its fullest. hendly, throughout his stay in india amidst his multiple roles in society over there (apart from his medical role, he was also hon. secretary of the jeypore museum and amongst the committee of several exhibitions of decorative arts) he showed a true passion for indian art. as well as the decoration of arms which he studied and (luckily for us) recorded, he was also involved heavily in other decorative and non-martial arms. for this reason, and this reason alone, i feel he was involved in what was relatively modern for his time (mid to late 19thC). his publications reflect this and so i think his 'poison' attribution could have possibly been folklore of the time. his attributions of the pieces in his ulwar book stemed from his own knowledge of the more modern pieces (which was extensive) but the descriptions of the older pieces came from the armouries accession notes, which could have been speculative. in his decorative arts book, he was in his element and it remains one of the most important books written on indian decoration, even though these were all of the 19thC.
as all the 'tears of the wounded' swords seem to date from the 19thC, although fiegel/tirri/pant date theirs to 17thC, i feel this enforces the decorative purpose of these pieces. the 17thC attribution has long been debated, mainly due to tirri taking his from fiegel, and fiegel taking his from the piece in dehli catalogued by pant, and pant taking his from the toss of a coin

the piece in the V&A has a distinctly 19thC hilt, as has 4 others i have seen, as well as the ones documented and in museums. of course swords are rehilted but i have yet to see one that hints at an earlier date (as always i look forward to be proven wrong).
as for the pearls. the V&A aquired an extensive collection of arms in 1964 from the collection of lord kitchener (after a long loan). amongst these was the well known sword of Dara Shukoh, which has been catalogued in various publications (arts of india for eg). this blade had a fabulous, almost black watered pattern, as did many others from the collection (elgood shows the early south indian swords from the same collection in his new book). hidden amongst these extremely important pieces (none of which are on show apart from the Dara Shukoh sword) is a small jambiya, of arabian form. the blade has this distinctive black watering and the fuller is channelled to incorporate 12-15 real pearls. it is the only piece i have seen with real pearls, which came from a collection formed in the 19thC. the piece is decorative but of typical jambiya form) and of the highest quaility. this hints at a court attribution, as many of his pieces were royal gifts (important swords, even for the time) during his role in india. i think these pieces hit into folklore around hendleys time, and steel balls may have been used to imitate this royal style and turned this type of sword into almost mythical proportion, hence the legends that started to circulate and continue now.
indian art has always run alongside mythology and folklore, and the miniatures and sculpture through the centuries fully show this. even the courtly scenes of the 19thC tend to lend towards the fantasy in places, and as this was the only real form of recording history at the time, it is hard to distinguish between the two sometimes.
sorry for not mentioning the pearled jambiya in the past, jens. i know how frustrating a description is without an image and i was waiting for the chance to supply you with both.

Jim McDougall · 3rd January 2005, 09:53 PM

Hi Jens & Brian,
I think we all agree that many of the more elaborate Indian weapons as well as western observations on them were in degree whimsical and subject in many cases to certain folklore in traditional sense.

In "Indian Firearm Curiosa" ("Arms & Armour" Vol.1, #1, p.81), Ian Bottomley states; "...Indian gunmakers enjoyed the patronage of clients who delighted in novelties. Guns were incorporated into other weapons such as axes,maces and swords...".

Naturally this illustrates the climate of armourers in India, especially in the 19th c. , when unique and exotic looking weapons were quite in vogue with the many rulers of varied principalities. Probably these proved interesting as gifts in the diplomatic strains between rulers under the suzerainty of the British Raj as well.

Bottomley (op.cit.) states further; "...all of these weapons, no matter how
cunningly concealed or cleverly devised, were in reality highly impractical".

I think this is for most of these 'weapons curiosa' typically the case, whether edged weapons or firearms, or both combined. As Tom Hyle mentioned, the concept of poisoned weapons seems to have been well known in folklore and tradition in most cultures. It seems the only actual application which seems undoubtedly established are the poison darts and arrows known in tribal warfare. For most edged weapons, the poison seems redundant as presumably the thrust or blow would prove mortal in most cases, especially with limited medical expertise available. With the dart or arrow, the wound potential is somewhat limited as a distanced projectile, thus the wound with a poisoned tip would prove certainly fatal regardless of its location anatomically.
Much of the concept with 'poisoned weapons' is likely psychological, as is presumed with 'voodoo' where the conditioned response to implication is sometimes quite measurable with the victims reaction.

All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 26th November 2017, 09:25 PM

I think this is an interesting subject.
Does anyone know if it was usual in India to use poisoned weapons?

Mercenary · 26th November 2017, 10:31 PM

Pearls or beads in the blades have nothing to do with poison. The answer lies in the old Persian poetic momentum. "Shine of the blade" = "Shine of the pearl" = "Shine of life" (the life that had been taken away from a man who had been killed by the blade). While in the old language for the concept of "shine" ("shine of pearl", "shine of blade") had been used known for us word "jauhar". So the pearls in the blade is its "jauhar", the shine of the blade, the soul of the blade. We always make the mistake when trying to understand the Eastern traditional weapons only from the practical European point of view.

Jim McDougall · 27th November 2017, 07:19 AM

Jens,
Always an interesting topic, and good to see it back up again! Thank you.
It seems we had a good look at this some years back, but we really never came up with anything conclusive.

It seems that the presence of the term 'abhradar' referring to poison blades in the Indian glossary on weaponry certainly suggests this may have been an actual practice. However, as discussed before, and as you noted, poison on a blade could prove disastrous to the user of the knife as well as to the potential victim.

Mercenary, interesting note about the pearls and the poetic metaphor about the blade and these pearls in Persian. I am curious about the term 'jauhar' though. It seems the Persian term 'poulad jauhardar' =waved steel, and refers of course to 'Damascus' or watered steel.

The word jauhar in India refers to the practice of Rajput women and in dire situations their practice of self immolation; or alternatively the use of a dagger they carried (called by that name) to prevent indignity or capture.

In India the term jauhardar foulad refers again to watered steel.
("Indian Arms & Armour", Pant, 1980)

Perhaps there might be transliteration at hand?

You are right about the misunderstanding of Indian arms being a prevalent circumstance in the west, and the very reason many of us here have worked this many years to learn more on them.
I know Jens has studied these arms long before I met him nearly 20 years ago, and we have come a long way.

Mercenary · 27th November 2017, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

You are right about the misunderstanding of Indian arms being a prevalent circumstance in the west, and the very reason many of us here have worked this many years to learn more on them.
I know Jens has studied these arms long before I met him nearly 20 years ago, and we have come a long way.

Oops.. this thread of 2005. I am sorry.
I know very well who is Jens and very grateful to him for his advices and knowledge which are always very valuable to me. Above I wrote about all of us - it is very difficult to be modern European man and try to understand what was in old time on the other side of the world in a different type of society.

3rd January 2005, 12:21 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	pearls hi jens and jim, the ones i have handled, although some were of good fighting form, they seem to show an artisan showing his art to its fullest. hendly, throughout his stay in india amidst his multiple roles in society over there (apart from his medical role, he was also hon. secretary of the jeypore museum and amongst the committee of several exhibitions of decorative arts) he showed a true passion for indian art. as well as the decoration of arms which he studied and (luckily for us) recorded, he was also involved heavily in other decorative and non-martial arms. for this reason, and this reason alone, i feel he was involved in what was relatively modern for his time (mid to late 19thC). his publications reflect this and so i think his 'poison' attribution could have possibly been folklore of the time. his attributions of the pieces in his ulwar book stemed from his own knowledge of the more modern pieces (which was extensive) but the descriptions of the older pieces came from the armouries accession notes, which could have been speculative. in his decorative arts book, he was in his element and it remains one of the most important books written on indian decoration, even though these were all of the 19thC. as all the 'tears of the wounded' swords seem to date from the 19thC, although fiegel/tirri/pant date theirs to 17thC, i feel this enforces the decorative purpose of these pieces. the 17thC attribution has long been debated, mainly due to tirri taking his from fiegel, and fiegel taking his from the piece in dehli catalogued by pant, and pant taking his from the toss of a coin the piece in the V&A has a distinctly 19thC hilt, as has 4 others i have seen, as well as the ones documented and in museums. of course swords are rehilted but i have yet to see one that hints at an earlier date (as always i look forward to be proven wrong). as for the pearls. the V&A aquired an extensive collection of arms in 1964 from the collection of lord kitchener (after a long loan). amongst these was the well known sword of Dara Shukoh, which has been catalogued in various publications (arts of india for eg). this blade had a fabulous, almost black watered pattern, as did many others from the collection (elgood shows the early south indian swords from the same collection in his new book). hidden amongst these extremely important pieces (none of which are on show apart from the Dara Shukoh sword) is a small jambiya, of arabian form. the blade has this distinctive black watering and the fuller is channelled to incorporate 12-15 real pearls. it is the only piece i have seen with real pearls, which came from a collection formed in the 19thC. the piece is decorative but of typical jambiya form) and of the highest quaility. this hints at a court attribution, as many of his pieces were royal gifts (important swords, even for the time) during his role in india. i think these pieces hit into folklore around hendleys time, and steel balls may have been used to imitate this royal style and turned this type of sword into almost mythical proportion, hence the legends that started to circulate and continue now. indian art has always run alongside mythology and folklore, and the miniatures and sculpture through the centuries fully show this. even the courtly scenes of the 19thC tend to lend towards the fantasy in places, and as this was the only real form of recording history at the time, it is hard to distinguish between the two sometimes. sorry for not mentioning the pearled jambiya in the past, jens. i know how frustrating a description is without an image and i was waiting for the chance to supply you with both.

3rd January 2005, 09:53 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Hi Jens & Brian, I think we all agree that many of the more elaborate Indian weapons as well as western observations on them were in degree whimsical and subject in many cases to certain folklore in traditional sense. In "Indian Firearm Curiosa" ("Arms & Armour" Vol.1, #1, p.81), Ian Bottomley states; "...Indian gunmakers enjoyed the patronage of clients who delighted in novelties. Guns were incorporated into other weapons such as axes,maces and swords...". Naturally this illustrates the climate of armourers in India, especially in the 19th c. , when unique and exotic looking weapons were quite in vogue with the many rulers of varied principalities. Probably these proved interesting as gifts in the diplomatic strains between rulers under the suzerainty of the British Raj as well. Bottomley (op.cit.) states further; "...all of these weapons, no matter how cunningly concealed or cleverly devised, were in reality highly impractical". I think this is for most of these 'weapons curiosa' typically the case, whether edged weapons or firearms, or both combined. As Tom Hyle mentioned, the concept of poisoned weapons seems to have been well known in folklore and tradition in most cultures. It seems the only actual application which seems undoubtedly established are the poison darts and arrows known in tribal warfare. For most edged weapons, the poison seems redundant as presumably the thrust or blow would prove mortal in most cases, especially with limited medical expertise available. With the dart or arrow, the wound potential is somewhat limited as a distanced projectile, thus the wound with a poisoned tip would prove certainly fatal regardless of its location anatomically. Much of the concept with 'poisoned weapons' is likely psychological, as is presumed with 'voodoo' where the conditioned response to implication is sometimes quite measurable with the victims reaction. All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 4th January 2005 at 12:19 AM.

3rd January 2005, 09:53 AM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, It may be like you say, or it may not. Like Hendley also writes: ‘In close combat a katar can be most fatal’. As he was a military surgeon, I guess that he knew what he was writing about, but when it came to the wounds a katar could make, but also when it came to the poison. Maybe he rather thought than knew about the poisoned pearls. Regards Jens

26th November 2017, 09:25 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think this is an interesting subject. Does anyone know if it was usual in India to use poisoned weapons?

26th November 2017, 10:31 PM	#5
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 426	Pearls or beads in the blades have nothing to do with poison. The answer lies in the old Persian poetic momentum. "Shine of the blade" = "Shine of the pearl" = "Shine of life" (the life that had been taken away from a man who had been killed by the blade). While in the old language for the concept of "shine" ("shine of pearl", "shine of blade") had been used known for us word "jauhar". So the pearls in the blade is its "jauhar", the shine of the blade, the soul of the blade. We always make the mistake when trying to understand the Eastern traditional weapons only from the practical European point of view.

27th November 2017, 07:19 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Jens, Always an interesting topic, and good to see it back up again! Thank you. It seems we had a good look at this some years back, but we really never came up with anything conclusive. It seems that the presence of the term 'abhradar' referring to poison blades in the Indian glossary on weaponry certainly suggests this may have been an actual practice. However, as discussed before, and as you noted, poison on a blade could prove disastrous to the user of the knife as well as to the potential victim. Mercenary, interesting note about the pearls and the poetic metaphor about the blade and these pearls in Persian. I am curious about the term 'jauhar' though. It seems the Persian term 'poulad jauhardar' =waved steel, and refers of course to 'Damascus' or watered steel. The word jauhar in India refers to the practice of Rajput women and in dire situations their practice of self immolation; or alternatively the use of a dagger they carried (called by that name) to prevent indignity or capture. In India the term jauhardar foulad refers again to watered steel. ("Indian Arms & Armour", Pant, 1980) Perhaps there might be transliteration at hand? You are right about the misunderstanding of Indian arms being a prevalent circumstance in the west, and the very reason many of us here have worked this many years to learn more on them. I know Jens has studied these arms long before I met him nearly 20 years ago, and we have come a long way.