Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion

RSWORD · 20th February 2005, 09:45 PM

Gentleman

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I appreciate the additional information and overall "brainstorming". I think it will take additional research and time to find another matching example with better provenance to help tie down where this thing may have originated.

The pommel is still perplexing me. Comparable Persian hilts tend to be lions and realistic. Of course, Tipu and his tiger pommels were also large and realistic. This one, which I think is closer to a tiger than a lion, is quite abstract.

Brian, if you look at the example of Tipu's helmet on p. 60, the nasal protector at the very top which extends above the top of the padding, you see the terminal ending which is a tiger. If you look at the downcurving projections from that tiger, they are elongated "duckbills". If you turn the book sideways when looking at this downcurving projection from the tiger head, I believe you will see what I am talking about.

Another interesting sword for comparison purposes is in Buttin's "Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes" in the very back in Planche XXXII. Example 1005 is listed as an Arabic Saif, 16th or 17th century, but if you look closely at the pommel, it seems abstract and although not exactly like my example, there seems to be similarities. Buttins description, which although I do not read French, could make out that he attributes this stylized "monster" pommel to Singalese influences. I do not know that that association is accurate in this paricular case but the abstract look of the pommel was interesting.

Man, I am all over the board with this one. Sweet!

Radu Transylvanicus · 20th February 2005, 10:47 PM

Well, for what is worth my opinion as far as geo-origin my opinion is west-central India: Gujarat, Rajahstan mainly. The sword if not Mughal, is very much inspired by the Mughal armorial products. The one piece metal hilt is much like ones west of Hindoostani borders, an afghano-persian qabzah while the blade remains of Hindu style and facture, a very close relative of the popat hilt (Indian arms and armour vol. II , by Dr. Pant od National Museum in New Delhi, a treasure of a book I received recently from a dear friend ) an Hindu adoption of Persian hilt.
Now the very good news: the swan neck knuckle guards are specific to late 17th, early 18th century west central India from Punjab to Gujarat . Now if thats the case can you imagine what a real treasure this is ?
And Jim, yes, I incline thats the case with ,,ice-bird,, definition (swan-neck is kind of personal definition, not to be confused with any scholar denomination, it just seem to me as the natural name, therefore I used it). Mughal gardens were home to gracefull, exotic large birds with opulent forms and plumage, peacock being absolute king but that was a male symbol, and in order to counterbalance the yin-yang in this sabre the knuckleguard swan (female and smaller in size and importance but nevertheless gracious) vs the pommel tiger/lion ( to put an end to RSWORDS dilema India is home even now but in the past even more to both lions and tigers ) as male symbol, larger in size. What is in red colour is my pure supossition without solid suport.

B.I · 21st February 2005, 11:29 AM

hi rick,
i'm sorry, i still cant see it. i personally think the top nasal bar is a tiger's head, which extends down to 2 bubri shapes, which extend to an additional 2 bubri shapes. i think the form of a duck (sorry, swan

) is coincidental. a minor point, but as this is all heading towards symbolism, the form of a bubri was inherant on all tipuesque pieces, where i have always thought this duck shape to be of persian influence. a trip back to the the army museum is long overdue and i think this a good reason for making the effort. maybe in the flesh it will be apparant.
radu, i must admit jumping up to bite, when reading your post. however, your colour coding makes it all clear, and i wonder if this was done to provoke such a reaction

. as a factual contribution, i would highly question what you say. as an unfounded opinion, i completely appreciate and accept what you say

. a few questions though. why gujerat/punjab? also, why do you think the bird head to be inherant in an indian style, and not persian in influence? i've always though this style of birds head to be uncommon on indian pieces and have only seen it on more 'indo-persian' items. if you look at comparative art, this style doesnt seem to exist, whereas a more peacock shape does. i'm not saying the animal wasnt around in india, i'm just not aware of it existing as an indian 'symbol'. yari heads were common through mythology, as were the peacock, tiger heads, stylised dragons etc. and yet, this 'duck' shape keeps cropping up in persian art from the 18th/19thC (and going back to the 16thC in a more stylised form) but rarely in indian art, unless in a piece thats heavily influenced by persian culture.
i believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar. i'm not saying this duck shape didnt exist in india, its just i'm not aware of examples and would like to see where your coming from.
also, pant is a little dangerous to quote from (sorry, i'm assuming the gujerat thing could have come from there as you mentioned both together. apologies if my assumption is unfounded). his rise through the ranks of museum personel was done as a successful businessman, and not necessarily a passionate arms academic. his knowledge was slight and the 'howlers' he wrote in his many books proved just this. also, a good friend knew him well and went to his funeral. he also admitted pants lack of knowledge even on a very basic level. he said it was almost embarrassing to have a conversation with him sometimes, especially in company as you didnt want to disagree. unfortunately, he has been replaced by a man of similar knowledge (kk. sharma) who is a very friendly man, apparantly, but again, with very little knowledge base.
the indian thing is a long, learning curve with no definate hope for results. for this reason, i hold comparative art quite highly as it is the only way to break through to find possible results. all that has been written has to be questioned and taken with a pinch of salt, even going as far back as egerton, hendley, watt, cole etc.
we have more access to information now, in the sculpture, miniatures and decorative arts, even though they spent much of their lives in the actual areas paving the way for us to try and push it all further.

Jens Nordlunde · 21st February 2005, 01:31 PM

Brian you wrote ‘I believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar.’
I am with you when you write about the slender neck, but that is not what makes the difference when it comes to these two big birds. The difference is the beak, when a peacock is shown the beak is pointed, and when it is a swan the beak is broad and round – not pointed at all.

Radu, if you find a reference inadequate, I would suggest that you ask about it. If the information is a hand, I am sure you will get an answer, if it is possible.

B.I · 21st February 2005, 01:38 PM

hey jens,
i hear what your saying. i suppose i have always assumed the form to be a peacock, without giving it a thought to being something else. in a sculpted form, your beak will make it clear. as an engraving, however, this would be less obvious. also, remember not all decorative art is up to the standard of your own collection. i have seen artists of such poor stature that i'm sure they were aiming for a peacock but produced a very ugly duck-like creature that could only be loved by its mother

Jens Nordlunde · 21st February 2005, 01:53 PM

Brian, I always thought it was Walt Disney/Carl Barks who invented Donald Duck, but I must be wrong

.

B.I · 21st February 2005, 02:47 PM

not sure what you are implying, jens, but carl barks was a comic genius and if he intended donald to be anything other than a duck, it would have been obvious and history would be slightly different

20th February 2005, 10:47 PM	#2
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	Well, for what is worth my opinion as far as geo-origin my opinion is west-central India: Gujarat, Rajahstan mainly. The sword if not Mughal, is very much inspired by the Mughal armorial products. The one piece metal hilt is much like ones west of Hindoostani borders, an afghano-persian qabzah while the blade remains of Hindu style and facture, a very close relative of the popat hilt (Indian arms and armour vol. II , by Dr. Pant od National Museum in New Delhi, a treasure of a book I received recently from a dear friend ) an Hindu adoption of Persian hilt. Now the very good news: the swan neck knuckle guards are specific to late 17th, early 18th century west central India from Punjab to Gujarat . Now if thats the case can you imagine what a real treasure this is ? And Jim, yes, I incline thats the case with ,,ice-bird,, definition (swan-neck is kind of personal definition, not to be confused with any scholar denomination, it just seem to me as the natural name, therefore I used it). Mughal gardens were home to gracefull, exotic large birds with opulent forms and plumage, peacock being absolute king but that was a male symbol, and in order to counterbalance the yin-yang in this sabre the knuckleguard swan (female and smaller in size and importance but nevertheless gracious) vs the pommel tiger/lion ( to put an end to RSWORDS dilema India is home even now but in the past even more to both lions and tigers ) as male symbol, larger in size. What is in red colour is my pure supossition without solid suport. Last edited by Radu Transylvanicus; 20th February 2005 at 11:01 PM.

21st February 2005, 11:29 AM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi rick, i'm sorry, i still cant see it. i personally think the top nasal bar is a tiger's head, which extends down to 2 bubri shapes, which extend to an additional 2 bubri shapes. i think the form of a duck (sorry, swan ) is coincidental. a minor point, but as this is all heading towards symbolism, the form of a bubri was inherant on all tipuesque pieces, where i have always thought this duck shape to be of persian influence. a trip back to the the army museum is long overdue and i think this a good reason for making the effort. maybe in the flesh it will be apparant. radu, i must admit jumping up to bite, when reading your post. however, your colour coding makes it all clear, and i wonder if this was done to provoke such a reaction . as a factual contribution, i would highly question what you say. as an unfounded opinion, i completely appreciate and accept what you say . a few questions though. why gujerat/punjab? also, why do you think the bird head to be inherant in an indian style, and not persian in influence? i've always though this style of birds head to be uncommon on indian pieces and have only seen it on more 'indo-persian' items. if you look at comparative art, this style doesnt seem to exist, whereas a more peacock shape does. i'm not saying the animal wasnt around in india, i'm just not aware of it existing as an indian 'symbol'. yari heads were common through mythology, as were the peacock, tiger heads, stylised dragons etc. and yet, this 'duck' shape keeps cropping up in persian art from the 18th/19thC (and going back to the 16thC in a more stylised form) but rarely in indian art, unless in a piece thats heavily influenced by persian culture. i believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar. i'm not saying this duck shape didnt exist in india, its just i'm not aware of examples and would like to see where your coming from. also, pant is a little dangerous to quote from (sorry, i'm assuming the gujerat thing could have come from there as you mentioned both together. apologies if my assumption is unfounded). his rise through the ranks of museum personel was done as a successful businessman, and not necessarily a passionate arms academic. his knowledge was slight and the 'howlers' he wrote in his many books proved just this. also, a good friend knew him well and went to his funeral. he also admitted pants lack of knowledge even on a very basic level. he said it was almost embarrassing to have a conversation with him sometimes, especially in company as you didnt want to disagree. unfortunately, he has been replaced by a man of similar knowledge (kk. sharma) who is a very friendly man, apparantly, but again, with very little knowledge base. the indian thing is a long, learning curve with no definate hope for results. for this reason, i hold comparative art quite highly as it is the only way to break through to find possible results. all that has been written has to be questioned and taken with a pinch of salt, even going as far back as egerton, hendley, watt, cole etc. we have more access to information now, in the sculpture, miniatures and decorative arts, even though they spent much of their lives in the actual areas paving the way for us to try and push it all further. Last edited by B.I; 21st February 2005 at 12:02 PM.

20th February 2005, 09:45 PM	#1
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,086	Gentleman Thank you for adding your thoughts. I appreciate the additional information and overall "brainstorming". I think it will take additional research and time to find another matching example with better provenance to help tie down where this thing may have originated. The pommel is still perplexing me. Comparable Persian hilts tend to be lions and realistic. Of course, Tipu and his tiger pommels were also large and realistic. This one, which I think is closer to a tiger than a lion, is quite abstract. Brian, if you look at the example of Tipu's helmet on p. 60, the nasal protector at the very top which extends above the top of the padding, you see the terminal ending which is a tiger. If you look at the downcurving projections from that tiger, they are elongated "duckbills". If you turn the book sideways when looking at this downcurving projection from the tiger head, I believe you will see what I am talking about. Another interesting sword for comparison purposes is in Buttin's "Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes" in the very back in Planche XXXII. Example 1005 is listed as an Arabic Saif, 16th or 17th century, but if you look closely at the pommel, it seems abstract and although not exactly like my example, there seems to be similarities. Buttins description, which although I do not read French, could make out that he attributes this stylized "monster" pommel to Singalese influences. I do not know that that association is accurate in this paricular case but the abstract look of the pommel was interesting. Man, I am all over the board with this one. Sweet!

21st February 2005, 01:31 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Brian you wrote ‘I believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar.’ I am with you when you write about the slender neck, but that is not what makes the difference when it comes to these two big birds. The difference is the beak, when a peacock is shown the beak is pointed, and when it is a swan the beak is broad and round – not pointed at all. Radu, if you find a reference inadequate, I would suggest that you ask about it. If the information is a hand, I am sure you will get an answer, if it is possible.

21st February 2005, 01:38 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hey jens, i hear what your saying. i suppose i have always assumed the form to be a peacock, without giving it a thought to being something else. in a sculpted form, your beak will make it clear. as an engraving, however, this would be less obvious. also, remember not all decorative art is up to the standard of your own collection. i have seen artists of such poor stature that i'm sure they were aiming for a peacock but produced a very ugly duck-like creature that could only be loved by its mother

21st February 2005, 01:53 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Brian, I always thought it was Walt Disney/Carl Barks who invented Donald Duck, but I must be wrong .

21st February 2005, 02:47 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	not sure what you are implying, jens, but carl barks was a comic genius and if he intended donald to be anything other than a duck, it would have been obvious and history would be slightly different