Indian axe

[colin henshaw]

Originally Posted by estcrh

I was a little surprised myself, small world. Your axe is one of only a few examples I know of with a rear facing spike, as for auction house descriptions, they range from very accurate to completely wrong so you have some info to work with but it would be nice to find some other verification. I would not think that this axe was meant for use on horseback as it has no hole in the shaft for a lanyard and the butt of the shaft has no raised area to tie a lanyard around.

Good point about the lack of a fixing area for a lanyard. The axe is quite sturdy and heavy, and there is an iron plate extending down the middle of the shaft from the axehead. Feels and looks more like a "user" than a parade item. Presumably the spike at the back of the axehead would be for piercing a metal helmet ?

Any other information on this axe is welcome.

[Jim McDougall]

This intriguing axe shown by Colin has had me struggling for days through notes etc. as this curious motif is so familiar, yet as I found, so elusive.
There are interesting clues however in the entry with similar (perhaps exact) item shown in the vague Christies description.

While the term battle axe is used (another term about as useful as descriptions using northern, southern etc without qualification) it seems the implication is that this is an Indian 'tabar', which it is not.
The Tabar was a larger and heavier axe, a much more conservative blade (not 'lunar' as cleverly noted for 'crescent') and a blunt poll at the back of the head. It was its smaller cousin, the tabarzin, which was a saddle axe of same shape only smaller.

What has been most telling is the Christies entry, which shows the example of this type axe along with a bullova. The bullova is a much varied in form axe, used by tribal groups in the Chota Nagpur plateau in Central India.
The most commonly seen form of head on these is the 'moustach' shape, though other variations are often profound.
What is key is the motif found on many of these 'bullova' axes, in particular the wavy lines with dots in each wave, as well as other linear geometric type accents. The curious bird image is also something seen in motif with many weapons often seen in places from Madurai, and into central eastern regions as noted, and of course farther north in cases.

The same type stippled dot linear motif profiling certain devices, triangular shapes etc is seen on what appears to be a variation of bullova (the traces of red paint as often seen still remaining) which has an almost bell shaped head. This shape is familiar as a Nagan form of dao from Assam in the north. Again, the curiously incised designs prevail, though the blade shape is clearly borrowed.

I think this axe is probably fashioned in central regions surrounding Chota Nagpur, and borrowing from the notions of a 'battle axe' of forms using the crescent head primarily parade or ceremonial style in other parts of India. The examples of these with double crescent axe heads are known in courtly settings seemingly for dramatic effect .

Naturally with this 'interpretive' example the spike at the rear is in my opinion added for effect in that sense, as most of these axes for combat had blunt or hammer type features which were indeed for compromising armor. The spike would probably become lodged in mail or armor, and the smashing of armor in the case of plate would render its occupant unable to move effectively etc.

The exception would be the bhuj, essentially a dagger axe which was indeed for penetration, particularly through textile armor or turbans. These were primarily Rajput though used by other groups.

As I was once told by a much respected author on ethnographic arms, "I dislike geographic boundaries! red lines on maps"...weapons have no geographic boundaries!
Obviously then, this axe, while reflecting key motif often seen on the bullova form in Central India and environs, also is made in an interpretive form reflecting both known types in other regions and spheres with added feature for effect . The caveat would be that it could as well have been produced in regions from virtually south to extreme north in eastern India, again using these terms to illustrate the encompassing vagueness unless including cultural groups or specific principalities

Another well seasoned collector once told me years ago, that virtually none of the various 'battle axes' he had ever examined had been sharpened, a most telling factor in determining their actual purpose . Also, various references noted that the crescent shape head was not a favored type for actual combat.

Also, I am curious about lanyards on these, most examples I have looked into do not have such a feature, and I would like to know of examples that do.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This intriguing axe shown by Colin has had me struggling for days through notes etc. as this curious motif is so familiar, yet as I found, so elusive.
There are interesting clues however in the entry with similar (perhaps exact) item shown in the vague Christies description.

While the term battle axe is used (another term about as useful as descriptions using northern, southern etc without qualification) it seems the implication is that this is an Indian 'tabar', which it is not.
The Tabar was a larger and heavier axe, a much more conservative blade (not 'lunar' as cleverly noted for 'crescent') and a blunt poll at the back of the head. It was its smaller cousin, the tabarzin, which was a saddle axe of same shape only smaller.

Depending on the source "tabar" simply means "axe", Egerton in "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" uses tabar to describe crescent, hoe, triangular, long curved, forked and short curved axe heads.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Depending on the source "tabar" simply means "axe", Egerton in "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" uses tabar to describe crescent, hoe, triangular, long curved, forked and short curved axe heads.

Interesting and most salient point, the use of certain specific terms for various weapon forms is indeed a slippery slope in the study of ethnographic arms. Much of this is the result of transliteration, semantics and other disruptions in using terms used locally in their respective cultures. In other cases, there is the instance of common parlance used by collectors and those historians who study these weapons, and often errors perpetuated by subsequent writers on them.

Case in point here is Egerton, who is a venerable and most respected author whose seminal work on Indian arms has stood as a benchmark for many serious students of these weapons. It must be remembered that he wrote in 1880, and there has been considerable research done since then.
It is indeed intriguing to see these entries in Egerton's catalog, in which this entire series of axes are termed 'tabars', to which I would agree that the term is indeed a Persian word for 'axe', hence the diminutive 'tabar-i-zin which means effectively 'saddle axe'.
In todays studies of ethnographic weapons, we would recognize these varying forms of axe as 'bullova' and known as forms from the tribes of Chota Nagpur as previously noted.

Egerton probably was unaware of the now accepted term for these axes as 'bullova', as they are referenced in Stone who wrote in 1934, and listed as his reference, "Sport and Adventure in the Indian Jungle", Mervin A. Smith, London, 1904.

With regard to the use of terminology on weapons, Stone did unfortunately follow Egerton in due course with his use of the term katar, for the transverse grip daggers well known to us by that name. In an ironic twist, Egerton shows the original plate (Plate 1,p.23)of the early reference on Indian arms, the "Ain -I-Akbari", a treatise on arms at the time of Akbar, where these type daggers are termed properly 'jamadhar'. In his subsequent entries, Egerton consistently uses the term katar for these daggers, which spurred the incorrect use of the term by following writers, including Stone.
("Indian Arms and Armor" Pant, 1980,
pp.162-163)
To add to the confusion which clearly illustrates the proper terms and use of them for certain Indian weapons, item #376 in Egerton shows a proper 'tabar'* which is a 'triangular' (actually trapezoidal geometrically) head axe (plate X). Then he shows a crow bill (zaghnol, #471) as a 'buckie"; then #473, a 'buckie' (actually a bhuj) and most puzzling another tabar , #474, as a 'buckie'.

* by 'proper' 'tabar', I mean the commonly held form typically thought of in general discussion of Indian arms without parlance deviation. I did find that in some cases Indian tabars were indeed crescent shaped (in Haider, p.233, on Mughal arms).

In "By My Sword and Shield" (E.Jaiwent Paul, 1995, p.84), it is noted that G.N.Pant (op.cit.) stating that "...tabar consisted of a triangular blade with one broad cutting edge"

However, in defense of the use of the term widely, in "The Tabar of a Turkish Dervish" (A.S. Melikian-Chirvani, "Islamic Arms & Armour" ed. Robert Elgood, 1979, pp.112-115). ..the author describing a piece shown in Paris in 1886, a crescent head with sweeping downward 'beard', and that"..this remarkable piece is indeed a tabar, which is Persian for 'axe'".
He also notes the tabar is of larger size traditionally than the tabarzin.
Also noted is that while this piece is a tabar, Islamic India can lay no claim to it.
It is interesting that these would be called 'tabar' as the Turkish word for axe is 'balta'...but it seems that term is used more specifically to the double crescent head axes carried by the Sultans bodyguards.

Terms can be confounding, as shown here. The term 'tulwar' in India is a general sort of term for sword, and is applied equally to shamshirs in Indian context. The term kilij well known in Turkey, is another term for sword, not only the familiar pistol grip sabres or the pala with pronounced yelman.
We can go on forever here with what we often term 'the name game'.

It seems that in many references, the term axe is used along with proper qualification including any locally used terms etc. and that seems most agreeable.

The profusion of photos is most impressive, as well as the illustrations of lanyard bearing examples as requested. While colorful and wonderful visually it would be good if they were captioned so as to be more helpful to those reading here. Also, it is helpful if photos, just as with quoted references are cited or referenced. Much as with references from various resources, it helps if images come with context and description.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The profusion of photos is most impressive, as well as the illustrations of lanyard bearing examples as requested. While colorful and wonderful visually it would be good if they were captioned so as to be more helpful to those reading here. Also, it is helpful if photos, just as with quoted references are cited or referenced. Much as with references from various resources, it helps if images come with context and description.

Jim, I am not sure how to add text along with the images on this particular forum, there is no "inline" attachments feature that I can find. You or anyone else can follow this link for any of the images I posted along with what descriptions there are.

http://www.pinterest.com/worldantiqu...hnal-and-bhuj/

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, I am not sure how to add text along with the images on this particular forum, there is no "inline" attachments feature that I can find.

Here is an example of how to overcome this hurdle: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18957

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Here is an example of how to overcome this hurdle: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18957

Crude but effective, thanks

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, I am not sure how to add text along with the images on this particular forum, there is no "inline" attachments feature that I can find. You or anyone else can follow this link for any of the images I posted along with what descriptions there are.

http://www.pinterest.com/worldantiqu...hnal-and-bhuj/

I appreciate the response to at least this part of my post. As Andrew has noted, often attached images after time disappear from threads, and as I have indicated, the text included loses a great deal of its detail without images which are specified in the text.

These threads have actually become an archives of sorts for those who are interested in pursuing the history of these weapons, rather than simply admiring images of them, despite the fact that these photos are often pretty breathtaking.

Naturally I know the old adage, 'a picture is worth a thousand words' (probably why my posts are so long), but referenced detail and notes from resources is also important, and takes quite a bit of time which I gladly take as I want to add as much as I can to discussions.

Although some of the processes here might seem crude, we all take whatever effort is necessary to add as much as we can to the threads, which often come up on web search entries for researchers studying various forms.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I appreciate the response to at least this part of my post. As Andrew has noted, often attached images after time disappear from threads, and as I have indicated, the text included loses a great deal of its detail without images which are specified in the text.

These threads have actually become an archives of sorts for those who are interested in pursuing the history of these weapons, rather than simply admiring images of them, despite the fact that these photos are often pretty breathtaking.

Naturally I know the old adage, 'a picture is worth a thousand words' (probably why my posts are so long), but referenced detail and notes from resources is also important, and takes quite a bit of time which I gladly take as I want to add as much as I can to discussions.

Although some of the processes here might seem crude, we all take whatever effort is necessary to add as much as we can to the threads, which often come up on web search entries for researchers studying various forms.

Jim, actually "attached" images are stored on the forums server and will not be lost, "linked" images are what disappears. "In line attachments" is when you can actually see your attached images in your post when you edit it, you can write above and in between the images and actually move the images around, the images appear over each other in the order you want and you can change the order, they are still stored on the forums server, its just a much easier way to add descriptions etc. Some forums support this, this one does not I guess. Of course attaching images is the best way to keep the posts for future research.

Here is what it looks like.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Another well seasoned collector once told me years ago, that virtually none of the various 'battle axes' he had ever examined had been sharpened, a most telling factor in determining their actual purpose . Also, various references noted that the crescent shape head was not a favored type for actual combat.

Also, I am curious about lanyards on these, most examples I have looked into do not have such a feature, and I would like to know of examples that do.

Here are a couple of crescent shaped axe with loops for a lanyard, besides an obvious hole in the shaft or a loop at the end of the shaft you have to look for an enlarged butt that a lanyard could be tied around, some axe have a completely straight shaft with no means of attachment for a lanyard, these were obviously not meant to hang from a saddle, Collin's axe seems to be of this type.

The last image is what would be I consider to be a real "battle axe" / "tabar-zin", not dull, it has a lanyard loop, not overly elaborate.

#1. Persian axe.
#2. Persian axe.
#3. Persian axe, shaft end.
#4. Indian axe, shaft end, (Colins).
#5. Indian axe.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Naturally with this 'interpretive' example the spike at the rear is in my opinion added for effect in that sense, as most of these axes for combat had blunt or hammer type features which were indeed for compromising armor. The spike would probably become lodged in mail or armor, and the smashing of armor in the case of plate would render its occupant unable to move effectively etc.

The exception would be the bhuj, essentially a dagger axe which was indeed for penetration, particularly through textile armor or turbans. These were primarily Rajput though used by other groups.

While images of spiked axe are rare there are a few, also I think that zaghnal and war hammers often had more of a spiked, penetrating form than the bhuj.

Here are a couple of spiked axe, tabar-zaghnal, double spiked zaghnal, Ottoman war hammer and bhuj for comparison.

#1. Ottoman axe with rear spike.
#2. Indian axe with rear spike.
#3. Indian antelope axe with rear spike, Furusiyya Art Collection.
#4. Zaghnal, double bladed, The Wallace Collection.
#5. Ottoman war hammer.
#6. Indian bhuj.
#7. Indian tabar / zaghnal.