Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion

[Jim McDougall]

While I am the first to defend the authors of books published on arms and armour, especially the venerable references that have served us for so many years, I am keen to defend only the material that maintains merit. That which has been either superceded or refuted serves only as dated material which reflects a benchmark in the progression of research, and is typically regarded as such by advanced students of arms & armour who recognize it as such.
I suppose this would be much like watching one of the classic old movies, the material is clearly dated, but the story remains well told and in perspective despite being viewed in a time with obviously much more advanced technology and environment. I still maintain that these authors deserve respect for having had the courage and tenacity to publish despite whatever flaws are inherent in thier work.

With Pant, Brian has astutely presented a caveat to this book as a reference and very gently noted the primarily business oriented ajenda which was one of the key forces in compiling this book. While Dr.Pant clearly brings in much of the data from earlier writers, he does make an effort to qualify and place in perspective much of the material he uses. One of the key problems with this work is that Pant attempts to abitrarily place indiginous provenance and typology on weapon forms and types without clearly supported evidence.
This problem as well as the dating of the various examples illustrated in the plates results from the museum cataloguing which relies on the period or region where the weapon was collected, often unaccurately and using presumed period attribution. Still these examples serve as outstanding references for experienced students of these weapons, who are well aware of the periods and characteristics which they actually represent.Those who are seriously pursuing the study of Indian arms at more of an entry level, would do well to use this book as a guide to further research, as a benchmark to build upon.

Radu, in the yataghan thread he has referenced, made the observation that these weapons were not just confined to limited regions, which was well placed. The same principle applies here, and it would be just as futile to assign a provenance to this sabre so finite as 'Gujerat/Rajasthan'. While seemingly a pretty safe statement, as well as the notation of Mughal attribution that corresponds supposedly to these regions, it is important to note the much wider scope of the Mughal Empire, which extended well into southern India. It would be quite easy to suggest Gujerat as a provenence for a weapon, since this was a key trade region, so many weapons would be presumed or noted as from there. It is the same with Rajasthan, which was a primary industrial region and in fact still produces swords there today.

I think Brian has well noted that these recoiled knuckleguards are not a particularly Indian characteristic, in fact the guard itself I would consider an indicator of European influence.The stylized motif on many of these does seem Persian, which of course did heavily influence Mughal India quite predominantly, as well as Central Asia, where this recoiled style guard also appears in degree and variation.

In our discussions, I think that presenting speculation and suppositions what this is all about, and using whatever resources or observations these are based on is essential. The idea is that any opposing or different ideas should be presented in kind. It's never about who is right or wrong, it's about learning together!! No finger pointing allowed!!!

All the best,
Jim