![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
Hi David,
To me it looks like two birds, maybe peacocks, but the casting looks rather crude – is it? Jens |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
This does seem to be a ceremonial or parade weapon, probably from southern India or quite possibly Sinhalan. I dont have the resource on Sinhalese weapons handy but I think there may be similar forms shown there:
"Sinhala Weapons and Armour" P.E.P. Deraniyagala Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. XXXV, #95, Part 3, Dec.1942 The banded shaft socket seems characteristic of these South Indian and Ceylonese polearms. David's observation that the decoration on this piece is possibly the face of the tiger is very astute, though this does not seem to be the case here.The kirtimukha (stylized lion mask) is often employed as motif on arms and over temple gateways and the differentiation between tiger and lion seems in degree unclear in reviewing the complexities of stylized motif in Indian art. While I cannot see the imagery of the peacock noted by Jens, and agree the casting seems crude, I agree that the motif may be that of the peacock feathers, presented symmetrically of course. Peacock feathers carried most important symbolism in Hindu art, and especially on weapons as the peacock represented Karttikeya, the god of war, and Son of Siva. The feathers were often used as an insignia of kingship, with deeper symbolism of immortality and power. Best regards, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]() Quote:
nice to hear from you ![]() I think you're right, ![]() ![]() ![]() Have Peacocks a symbollic or cultural meaning ? Kind Regards David Last edited by katana; 24th November 2007 at 06:20 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
Hi Jim
![]() seems we posted at the same time ..... interesting points about the kirtimukha and the information about the peacock symbolism. Thank you The design could be a sort of morphic combination of tiger(lion) /peacock ![]() The design of the socket does indeed make me think of Southern India, had never considered Ceylon ![]() Kind Regards David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
Hi David,
The tiger, the lion and the peacock were royal animals. The horse as well if I remember correctly. Besides, the peacock is a very good watch bird, as it makes an awful noise when it is disturbed. Well said Jim, you don’t seem to need all your books ![]() Jens |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
![]()
THE TWO SIDE PRONGS ARE THE BIRDS TAILS GOING TOWARD THE SOCKET IT COMES TO THE BIRDS LEG, GOING TOWARD THE BLADE TIP IT CURVES AROUND TO FORM THE 2 BIRDS HEADS. THE PEACOCK WAS OFTEN USED IN INDIA AND ROYALTY LIKED TO HAVE THEM AROUND THEIR GARDENS BECAUSE THEY WERE BEAUTIFUL ,MADE GOOD WATCH BIRDS AND WERE VERY TASTY.
![]() ![]() THE CHINESE MOSTLY FAVORED THE HO-HO BIRD OR PHOENIX AND LATER EUROPEANS TALKED OF THE LYRE BIRD OR BIRD OF PARADISE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE PEACOCK WAS THE REASON FOR THE LEGEND OF THE PHOENIX OR NOT BUT BOTH IT AND SOME OF THE ORIENTAL PHESANTS WOULD BE CONTINDERS. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
You're very welcome David!
Thank you so much for the kind words Jens! I still have my trusty Elgood, but still really miss the others!!! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
The two ceremonial spearheads have arrived. The decoration is hand chiselled brass. The socket appears to be cast bronze, hand finished and decorated. The socket opening is not perfectly round and seems that mechanical tools were not used in their construction. The patina on both of them suggests some age, and I could easily see these being 19th C.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|