Kora

[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.

[Oliver Pinchot]

I'm with Mahratt, I like to see supporting examples whenever possible.

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. In the photo is a no-nonsense character in fanciful armor (some of it repurposed from an elephant armor) holding a massive sword of the sort someone pictured above; although it is sheathed, the type can be determined from its size and shape. I no longer have a hard copy of that NG, but I am sure that someone who has the time to do so can find it online. There was a later reissue of the photo in the 1930s or 40s that was colored. Both refer to "The Executioner" in the title, but it looks to me like a posed photo designed strictly to awe European guests.

Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

I'm with Mahratt, I like to see supporting examples whenever possible.

This famous photo. Unfortunately, the sword in the scabbard, and we can not say how this sword looks. I think it looks like this:

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

Oliver,

No arguments about it.
But calling the "for sale" items "souvenirs" would not be correct, IMHO.
Any item connected with an historical event acquires special aura and meaning.


A lavishly illustrated booklet sold to the visitors to the Statue of Liberty is a souvenir. A genuine official programme of the unveiling ceremony of the same Statue of Liberty is a true antique object worth collecting ( I recently saw it being bought by Rick from the "Pawn Stars" for several hundred bucks:-)))

Thus, if one could provenance the Kora in question to the actual Durbar event, it would be a worthwhile collector's item.
Unfortunately, we cannot. However, we also cannot dismiss such a possibility. And that was the entire gist of my comment to the current owner.


I really do not think that this forum needs sarcastic and supercilious snarks addressed to the novices who are genuinely seeking information.

[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?

[Jim McDougall]

LOL!!!!
Good one Mercenary!!! 'durbars were not theatrical' !!!????
Great photos which illustrate the monumental degree of 'performance' which were intended fully to impress and influence.

These were oriented toward British officialdom and often nobility and naturally the highest degree of embellishment could be found on all manner of costume, material cultural items, weapons etc.

Indian 'festivals' were far more often and regularly held events with the purpose of traditional and often religious orientation. While the durbars of course brought in colonial populace, officials and occupying military and many associated groups who certainly sought souveniers of these great events.......the festivals would have been far less 'commercial' in my view.

The term 'theatrical' in our discussion as I have understood is a metaphoric term to describe something embellished far beyond similar items in regular situations, made to outwardly attract attention. Often this term refers to stage type props which would not be of the quality and durability of the items they portray.

[mahratt]

Jim, monumentality and theatricality - is not the same))))) The greatness and cheap farce - different.
Excellent swords, that we see among the participants durbar in Delhi (in the photo) do not look like the sword that we are discussing

[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.

[Tim Simmons]

Asian things are not my thing but I have to agree with Mahrrat . In the UK these things are extremely common and the very same decorative techniques can be be found on many blade weapon forms. They are late 19th century early 20th century souverniers. Really not worth argument in my mind. Still look good if you like Asian stuff.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys, maybe I'm not making what I am suggesting clear enough. If we are talking about durbars........the EVENTS are monumental and theatrical in sense.
The weapons and costume etc. USED or PRESENTED in these events are of course often highly embellished and of superb quality.

The items often hawked in bazaars and by sellers AROUND these events during their time and frequented by TOURISTS and SOUVENIER SEEKERS
though NOT actually USED in the durbar itself are of course of lower quality,
often even cheap.

The bizarrely costumed guy with the huge tegha and spikes galore is what I would call THEATRICAL......this is not the common costume worn .....it seems this image is often referred to as an executioner, but that is because of the IMPRESSION being staged.

The durbar events were MONUMENTAL because if their huge scope, celebration and importance.

I hope this might clarify what I was trying to say. Please pardon the capital letters, my goal was to emphasize the terms . I apparently often don't make myself clear so my apologies for the confusion.

I really had no idea that trying to describe an item from a durbar in the 19th century which falls into 'souvenier' scope would be confused with the presentation and lavish items used by important individuals there.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]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.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

[Mercenary]

[QUOTE=ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

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.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

What was it? Read this for a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasif_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waris_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...lers_of_Bengal

[ariel]

David,
Nobody ever claimed here that this particular Kora was actual armament of a royal retinue. Nor was a claim introduced that this particular Kora was even a commemorative piece sold at the Durbar pageant.

The only thing that was said, that according to Oliver, weapons of similar decorative motives were manufactured en masse for Delhi Durbars.

For some reasons, some people misinterpreted ( misread? misunderstood?) the meaning of this statement, took it as an categorical claim about the posted Kora and started a pseudo-academic Jihad , demanding documented and photographic proof affirming the idea nobody here ever advanced.

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

Once again, I think that a question asked by a novice deserves truthful, informative and respectful answer. No sarcasm. No snarks. And that was exactly I and Jim tried to convey.

[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.....

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 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.....

LOL!
I think the problem was that the charge was actual and not staged, so perhaps it posed a reality issue. Also, this was not a war between U.S. and Mexico but an in house problem, the Revolution! We do know that Pancho Villa posed for photographs, as did his men in many cases, and they had weapons, which I believe were real, and not souveniers.

Quo Vadis

[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.