Significance of Beaded Edges/Borders on South Indian Weapons?

[Jim McDougall]

I think the use of beaded decoration both aesthetically and traditionally is indeed related to much deeper religious orientation. While such decoration used occasionally on sword hilts as seen on some hussar sabre hilts (Esterhazy unit of cavalry 1740s and other versions) in Europe, these appear to have been indirectly related to the Rosary bead theme. The use of engraved dots on blades termed "Paternoster' were also related to religious imbuement.

In this case, these beaded edges seem likely to recall the prayer beads used in Muslim Faith termed I believe Misbaha or Tasbih, and while origins are unclear in this use, the concept itself of use of beads may have had Buddhist origin.
In Islam, I believe the beads in varied combination numerically may represent the 99 Names of Allah. In some cases there may be 33 for example, and counted three times each etc.

Clearly the use of beads in decoration often may be used numerically to represent key or auspiciously significant numbers, and are often seen by those uninitiated in that particular context may regard them as aesthetically applied.

In these cases, often beads themselves gained a keenly auspicious value and were indeed used is important occasions and ceremonies is that sense in the manner suggested, which would indeed include weddings etc.

There have been many books and references attending to the use of beads in the symbolism created and used in civilization into prehistory. This is as brief as we might explain the plausible use here.

[ariel]

Elgood’s entire first Indian book was about the connection between weapons and rituals. With multiple religious consultants working with him there is no way a feature that wide-spread would have escaped his investigative clutches.

I am with Jens and mross: just a pretty embellishment. In a way, this is a parallel development of European and Caucasian real and false filigrees.

India is a country filled with mysteries and hidden meanings. Because of that, we may be lured into futile searches for mysteries where there are none.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Bob A]

It's often seemed to me that Indian decorative sensibilities tend toward what some in the West might consider over-embellishment. "Nothing exceeds like excess" might be the motto.

An Afghan rug merchant of my acquaintance tended to refer to this trend as "Kutchi". I don't know if his reference holds any more than simple anecdotal comment, however.

I find it part and parcel of the aesthetics of the region. While it is not universal - not everyone can afford the price of embellishment - it is certainly not uncommon.

[ariel]

Good point!
Al Sabah collection of Indian arms is the ultimabte example of “bling”. Somehow, the word Kutchi reminds me of Kitschy:-)
Elgood writes about sacral motives of overdecorating weapons with immoderate amounts of gold and gems. My guess that behind that pious facade was a garish dollop of showmanship and bragging.

Compared to it, beaded edges of steel handles are an example of modesty.

Persian Shah Ismail sent Sultan Selim a lavishly decorated sword right before the Battle of Chaldiran. One potential motive was to show his superiority (weapons were normally gifted by a sovereign to his servant). Another explanation was a supercilious snark that Turks fight like overjewelled women. Selim disabused Ismail of that notion the very next day:-)

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Elgood’s entire first Indian book was about the connection between weapons and rituals. With multiple religious consultants working with him there is no way a feature that wide-spread would have escaped his investigative clutches.

I read the Bible. There is nothing about dinosaurs, Antarctica or the Earth’s magnetic field. Although there were consultants ... do not compare with anyone.
Why? Because the Bible was written about something else. Also the book you talked about it is written about something else: about weapons in the ritual (and then only one chapter). Above I'm talking about the ritual in weapons . This is another animal (like the difference between a palm squirrel and a fox).

I am with Jens and mross: just a pretty embellishment.

Just an embellishment. Just India. Just another culture. Just three thousand years. Nothing complicated.

India is a country filled with mysteries and hidden meanings.

A typical point of view of the 17-19th century. Where all western knowledge about the weapons of India and its culture got stuck.

Because of that, we may be lured into futile searches for mysteries where there are none

All cats are grey in the dark

[ariel]

Well, if you are so convinced in the veracity of your hypothesis, continue your quest. You will have to find documentary evidence supporting it. I am sure there are many Sanskrit texts not yet meticulously read for a mention of this minor decorative detail even by professional Indian philologists. When you find it please let us know. I for one will be very interested. Good luck!

And BTW, there are tons of discussion points about ritual in weapons in Elgood’s book.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, if you are so convinced in the veracity of your hypothesis, continue your quest. You will have to find documentary evidence supporting it. I am sure there are many Sanskrit texts not yet meticulously read for a mention of this minor decorative detail even by professional Indian philologists. When you find it please let us know. I for one will be very interested. Good luck!

Thank you, but let me say. The traditional culture works in different way. Although in the texts there are indications which artistic expressive means should be used in certain cases, but this concerns, as a rule, fundamental forms.
You are absolutely right when you say that such a decoration are just an embellishment. You answer the question "What is it?". In my case I, as it should be in studies in the field of traditional cultures, try to answer the question "Why is it so?"
Yes, it is an embellishment. Beginning from the 15-16th centuries in India almost everything already becoming just an embellishment. But it is still possible to trace its origin, because in traditional culture nothing disappears without a trace, but is reborn and finds new forms of existence.

And BTW, there are tons of discussion points about ritual in weapons in Elgood’s book

I fully agree and really appreciate such books. They allow us to find answers to questions. Questions and answers that are not in these books.

[Jens Nordlunde]

There are other books showing this beaded edges. Like Mortal Beauty, 2015. Page 208. Here it says Central India17th to 18th century.
Robert Elgood: Arms & Armour at the Jaipur Court, 2015. Page 87. Katar late 19th century. Page 128. Tulwar probably Kotah or Bundi 18th or early 19th century. Here Elgood writes: "Katars with a grip with a single knop, the design presumably acquired form the Deccan, were popular in Kotah/Bundi in the mid eighteenth century. Sword hilts with beaded edging can be seen in Kotah/Bundi paintings between 1760-1866 But do not appear in other Rajput miniatures."

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Indian jewellery has examples of this beaded technique in the South Indian Jhumkas ...ear rings styles..

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... I, as it should be in studies in the field of traditional cultures, try to answer the question "Why is it so?"

Well, any study of anything is an open field to ask a variety of questions and the beauty of research that we do not know beforehand which one is going to be more productive. Questions cannot be wrong or stupid. It is the methodology applied and the final answer that are. Therefore, " as it should be" is just a declarative statement devoid of any academic meaning.

You asked your question believing it to be answerable and important. Well and good. Now it is up to you to employ relevant methodology and prove the correctness and value of your answer.

With best wishes.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I think we lost Nihl somewhere along the road:-).