Kora

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

I wish there were more "coffee table albums" like that...

I tend to respect Oliver Pinchot's opinions. Obviously you do not. To each his own. Pity you cannot comprehend his wise and nuanced insights: you might have changed your mind.

Very well said Ariel!!! and I am with you 150% re: Oliver !!!

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Very well said Ariel!!! and I am with you 150% re: Oliver !!!

Jim, that's fine - trust people! I repeat to you the question that asked ariel (ariel not answer). You know Durbar photo, for example, in Delhi, which has a similar sword?

[Panzerraptor]

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Also, I think I've seen that kind of tegha before. A month or so before, a similar specimen had been circulating around some auction sites and eBay. Though when it was listed, I wasn't sure it was the real deal. Maybe I should take it seriously the next time it ever shows up.

Anyway, about cleaning it. Is there a specific way of doing it for this sword other than the usual mineral oil/paper towel method? Also, are the colored portions of this sword brass or gold?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Also, I think I've seen that kind of tegha before. A month or so before, a similar specimen had been circulating around some auction sites and eBay. Though when it was listed, I wasn't sure it was the real deal. Maybe I should take it seriously the next time it ever shows up.

Anyway, about cleaning it. Is there a specific way of doing it for this sword other than the usual mineral oil/paper towel method? Also, are the colored portions of this sword brass or gold?

I probably bad writing in English This sword (Kora) - a souvenir of the late 19th - early 20th century for Europeans. And a souvenir of poor quality. yellow metal on the blade - brass.

And the question to all participants. Guys, anyone of you has a picture Durbar Square, where there are people with sword-Kora?

I will be happy to see such a photo.

[sirupate]

The hilt type on the Khunda in your original post Panzerraptor, is not uncommon in Nepal on their swords, but rarer on their Khunda

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century, but the purpose of its creation is unknown. More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

That was exactly what I wrote in post #9. Weapons cannot talk and the individual stories of them cannot be known . That's why we cannot be categorical and insist on our version of their origin and purpose. Stating with certainty that it is a cheap souvenir is just as incorrect as claiming that it was produced for a particular celebration and searching for positive or negative evidence. As was said, buy the weapon, not the story:-))
And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

[mahratt]

Unfortunately, no one can prove to you that this is a ceremonial weapon. Because no evidence of this - no. You will not find any one pictures of India, where the ceremony would be with such swords))) Books that are written dealers or to assist in the implementation of the collection - it is not the best source of knowledge .... And if there is no evidence that it is the sword for the ceremony, it turns out that it is a souvenir sword.

Always nice to believe that you have in your collection "ceremonial sword", and not old souvenir. But the truth is that the this sword - this souvenir

Dont be upset. We all (with few exceptions) at the beginning of the formation of its collections made similar mistakes.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

May be you are confusing with Indian festivals?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century...

...likely it is a purely decorative piece .... that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.

[David]

I must say that i have been following this thread with some amusement, but also a little bit of concern. It seems to me that the need to be contrary has trumped the obligations we may have to present the OP with some clear and understandable opinions. I can only image what must be going through our novice collector Panzerraptor's mind at this point. He came to us very excited about what he had hoped was a great buy on an authentic weapons lot. After some uncomfortable discourse between certain members here was his initial take from the debate.

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Now, i'm not expert by far in this particular field of collection, but from what i can see in the photos and from what i can glean from what others have been presented here so far, Panzerraptor's kora does indeed seem to be a souvenir. I mean, that is what you call an item bought in a place or at an event to commemorate that moment and experience in your life. And that is a possible description of what this item might be (sans the actual word souvenir) as provided by both Oliver and Jim. Now, it does seem to be an antique souvenir so i suppose it has some collector's value as such. It may or may not be an "historic" souvenir depending on whether or not it was purchased in a bazaar at one of these grand Durbars or just anywhere at any other time. But to be clear, i don't think anyone won the lottery here with this purchase and i would hate to see Panzerraptor get the wrong impression from this discussion. Though i could be wrong i cannot image such an example as this being crafted for royals for ceremonial purposes at a Durbar. And from what i understand these Durbars put on for the British Raj didn't really conduct any real business of state as the original Durbars did so what kind of ceremony would this kora possibly be used for. I believe it is important that we be kind, especially to new collectors, but also as clear and accurate as possible for Panzerraptor's sake and not be feeding him any false hopes that this kora is more than it appears to be, a souvenir. While there may indeed be some possibility that this kora was sold at market to someone who attended one of these Durbars, since their is no commemoration marked on the blade nor any written provenance to that fact, nor any photographic evidence showing similar blades either in use ceremonially or even being sold in the markets there in the first place, nor for that matter, AFAIK, any written evidence describing such similar swords of this quality being used in ceremonies at any of these Durbars it seems imprudent of us to suggest otherwise. To give Panzerraptor hope of this being anything more than an antique souvenir seems to serve no purpose as far as i can see. I don't think any of us can say for sure that it is anything else no matter how many photographs we show or what arguments we want to make about the added importance of "historic" souvenirs that were acquired at important events over everyday souvenirs collected by travelers at any other time in history. If Panzerraptor were to decide tomorrow to then re-sell this kora would it be fair of him to present the Durbar story as a selling point? I don't think so.
That said, i am really enjoying the historic photographs of these events. Jim, for your sake, and speaking from the perspective of a professional photographer and photography instructor who teaches a bit of photo history, i would say that it would be more correct to say that most of these images are "posed" not "staged". Staged would imply they were set up specifically for the photograph while posed means they were simply told to hold it for the long exposures of the time while going about their ordinary business at hand. There were one or two group shots that might come under the heading of staged, but the overall scenes of the proceedings themselves went on regardless of whether a photographer was trying to capture them or not.

[Ian]

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

Well Ian, i certainly wouldn't argue with you about the staged nature of the guy with the spiky armor. But i am talking about the large majority of these images, not the odd man out. Take a look at the last group of photos that Mercenary put up for instance. You think a photographer staged all those people in those photos. Of course he didn't, they are the actual event including up to thousands of participants. Even the group shot of the dignitaries doesn't look staged since all their attentions seem to be elsewhere rather than on the photographer.
The photographer you are thinking about regarding Native American photos was Edward Curtis. It is true that he staged many rituals for the camera in order to preserve them for history, though generally not incorrectly. Some of the rituals he recorded have never been seen otherwise by any other white man. He was known to carry some wardrobe with him, but he travelled extensively throughout native lands living with tribes for long periods at a time so he got to know them and their ways rather well. There are not many cases known where he gave incorrect weapons to his subjects to hold. He created tens of thousands of images and collect copious notes chronicling the tribes he studied creating an invaluable collection for research despite what we might consider today to be a few missteps in his methodology.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

Thank you Ian!
As you note, photographers indeed produced many fascinating photos of Native Americans etc. and I found David's edification on the terms 'posed' vs,. 'staged' most interesting.
I fully thought, as you have perfectly noted, that a 'staged' photo would have been of an 'action' illustration, as in my mention of 'combat' photos.
A posed photo would be a still 'portrait type photo.



In an interesting analogy (and I fully expect correction) it seems that in the Mexican Revolution. a movie (film?) maker wanted to use Pancho Villa and his men in a movie. They filmed an actual charge or attack while accompanying him on campaign......however they declined to use the footage.......it wasn't real enough!!!!
Now I cannot state which documentary I saw this in, so I present it here anecdotally for entertainment value only.

[ariel]

Say what?

You cannot present a photograph of the movie crew actually filming Pancho Villa at the head of the charge?
Then how can you claim that Pancho was a real living human being? Or that there was a war between the U.S. and Mexico? Or that there was such country as Mexico?

:-))))))))))))))


Argumentum ad absurdum.....

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ian

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested. Ian.

Ian, I do not know of any Indian elephant armor that looks like this armor, I see no reason to assume that this armor is not real until proven otherwise. If anyone has a picture of Indian elephant armor that resembles the armor being worn in this photo please post it.

I have posted the only other photo I know of Indian spiked armor.

(Indian (Rajasthan) back armor, 17th c, plates of steel with cast pointed spikes joined together with steel mail, giving it strength and flexibility. The entire armour consists of nine rows with five spiked plates in each row. It is padded with red velvet. There are four laces, one at each corner, with which it was tied over a zirah (shirt of mail), L: 66, width : 65 cm. The National Museum, New Delhi.)


Here is a description of the executioner photo from The Wide World Magazine, Volume 1. 1898

LORD HIGH EXECUTIONER OF THE STATE OF REWAH, CENTRAL INDIA.

This picturesque person is not a full - dress character out of one of Mr. Gilbert's operas, nor is he a candidate for a prize at a fancy-dress ball. No, he is none of these things. Do not laugh when I tell you that this is the Lord High Executioner of the State of Rewah, in Central India. As you may see for yourselves, he is a man of most gigantic stature, and he is so rigged up as to inspire feelings of terror in the condemned criminal, whose head he is presently to slice off with his formidable scimitar. He is stuck all over with spikes, even to the underneath part of his forearms, and he would be an unpleasant person to run up against on dark nights, for more reasons than one.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, that's fine - trust people! I repeat to you the question that asked ariel (ariel not answer). You know Durbar photo, for example, in Delhi, which has a similar sword?

I don't trust everyone........but I will tell you that if Oliver says it, you better believe it! He says more in just a few well chosen words than a lot of arms scholars can put together in many (including me . That is why I always resent this book of a fine collection by him being even remotely classified as 'coffee table' !!!

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek question?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

The British Raj and many colonial circumstances in various countries and regions lent well to the cottage industry of supplying souveniers to both occupying forces and whatever tourism might have developed by visitors.

These items were inherently of traditional forms, and meant to be impressive. They were not of the quality of diplomatic gifts or presentation items, but as Ariel has noted, have gained their own historic value as pertains to the events in which they might have been emplaced.

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

My dear friend, Jim, of course, I understand that in 1850 there were some problems with taking pictures But, we're kind of talking about 1903? I do not get them mixed up?

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

This photo is from a 1903 edition of National Geographic, commemorating the Delhi Durbar held in that year, which celebrated the accession of Edward VII. .

But I do not insist on the pictures. After all, we both know that nobody knows these photos if no one was able to show this photo. For I will have enough historical source of the late 19th - early 20th century, which will be write of such items. Anybody can quote? I am very interested.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

Can you give more examples (besides photos that kindly showed Oliver), where clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc.? I can show you a few images of Durbar. But there are all dressed real, without exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

I understand that tolerance is fine I love when forum participants see an modern item (such as a souvenir knife) and a few posts flowery praise this item. And to end the discussion, the words that it "is not quite old an item". But I do not understand why can not just say, "Man, this is not the authentic item is. Great if you like him, but this is not the old thing..."

Is telling the truth - this is not the act of a gentleman?


Dear Oliver, you write about an similar item in his book: "Many were produced for the Dehli Durbars". Tell me, please, in which a book on Delhi Durban you get this information?Or is it your personal opinion?

[Ian]

Hi Mahratt:

Perhaps some of the discussion of durbars reflects the different functions of these events, especially under British rule in India during the second half of the 19th C and into the 20th C.

Durbar is originally a Persian word for the King's Court--a place where the king did his business with nobles and courtiers, and important ceremonies were held. A special durbar could be called for major events, such as the marriage of the next heir to the kingdom, etc. These practices continued in the various Indian princely courts, even during the time of the British Raj. Traditional durbar were held into the first half of the 20th C. in many of the princely states.

The British somewhat corrupted the process by holding large gala pageants when a new Viceroy was installed or a new British monarch was crowned or celebrated a jubilee. This practice started in the late 19th C. In keeping with local custom, the British called these events durbar but there was no traditional business conducted at these spectaculars.

I think it's important to distinguish between the traditional functions of durbar and what foreigners introduced at a fairly late stage. That's not to say that traditional durbar were devoid of spectacle, but the British versions were all spectacle and no real substance other than showing loyalty to the Viceroy and the Crown.

Ian.

[mahratt]

Ian, thank you!

I have no doubt that you are right. But I understand that there is no evidence that at the time of such theatrical durbars for Europeans, the Hindu had swords, like a sword that we are discussing? Or I'm wrong?

[Jim McDougall]

Ian, thank you so much for the great synopsis on durbars! This really gives a great perspective on the significance of these notable events. Clearly these evolved into events of quite different character eventually, and of course the nature of items either presented, displayed or sold would have had various degrees of character.

Mahratt, you do know of course that the analogy on cameras was to illustrate a point. We do not always have the benefit of photographic evidence to support every aspect of our observations or suggestions.
Naturally much of what is presented here in discussion will be a matter of opinion, but in most cases 'informed' opinion. I am more inclined to accept an opinion offered by a person who has handled enormous numbers of weapons, studied academically and produced considerable published material on topics than someone who simply makes an off the cuff comment.

While you clearly do not approve of Oliver's book on the Wagner Collection, referring to it as 'coffee table' level, he entered a post supportive of your other comments and tried to accommodate your 'requests' for images of durbars. He was being in my view quite gentlemanly if you noticed.

His comments on the durbars and nature of the weaponry found in them is based on profound experience, and many years of handling and researching arms. Just how much proof is needed to convince you of the integrity of his comments ? It is often difficult for someone to produce exact references for every observation over many years of studies. I know that I cannot always do so regarding my mere five decades of study, and citing examples from many years back....but I know the veracity of what I say . Would then a comment by me be considered useless if I could not produce exact reference?

Here we have friendly (?) usually, discussions where stringent academic protocol is not required to make observations or comments. If another does not agree, then that is their own choice.

As for making comments on a weapon here for discussion. There is nothing wrong with being truthful, however it seems that it should not be too hard to say an item is probably modern and commercial.......but to withhold calling it junk or low quality etc. It is not necessary to deride others who politely comment on an item regardless of its quality, and these things are just common courtesy.

Regarding the question you just asked Ian........yes, there is evidence that there were weapons like this in use. I have one, a kora with a tulwar hilt. These I have found are Bengali, just as noted in earlier discussions.These I have been told were used in sacrificial rituals of doves , but I have no proof or pictures, and I have not had access to the sword for years, and mine was not embellished.
Im just sayin'

[mahratt]

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

[David]

BTW, i did find a few other similar koras when searching the net. Their engravings are of somewhat varying qualities as i believe Oliver stated was common for these blades found in the market places. None of these made any claims to be connected to any Durbars, some where labelled as Nepali, some Indian.