![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,593
|
![]()
Hi Gene,
Rick is spot on (of course!! ![]() Excellent observation on the shape of the suspension fixture, which does resemble the 'vajra' or thunderbolt, a key symbol in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. It is interesting that decorative motif in India on weapons in particular, often borrowed themes and motif from elements in degree from all of these Faiths. The clovers are interesting motif and may have associations to the Trimurti, though this seems an unusual application. I guess looking into similar use in some of the material culture might offer some clues. All the best, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,593
|
![]()
Addendum:
Ok, I was going berserk trying to figure out what in the world Mughal India and shamrocks had to do with each other! Trying to find information on the lowly three leaf clover is nearly impossible..its all about the four leafs. In "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, p.122, figs 11.19 & 11.22) are swords with pommels having three sphere form, representing botanicals such as lotus buds, and associated with 16th century Mughal weapons. The theme indeed represents the trimurti (trinity) of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, and it is further noted on p.126 that "...the symbol, like that denoting clubs on a pack of cards, occurs as a decorative motif on temples such as Gangaikondacholapuram"... (now try to pronounce that one ! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Sharp end
Posts: 2,928
|
![]() Quote:
Truly, I am in awe buddy! What a strange way for me to finally own a part of a sword from the Mughal period! God I wish I had the rest of it ![]() Do you think 17thc is about secure date wise? I'm really not sure when gilding became commonplace in that part of the world? Thanks Gene |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 637
|
![]()
Sorry but I think you are looking at a lot later period of time,gilding of this type was done into the 20th century. The work level of the engraving is not on par with the standards of the time. It could be but it is doubtful.
Last edited by ward; 30th March 2009 at 03:07 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Sharp end
Posts: 2,928
|
![]() Quote:
I'm not particularly bothered if its later. Its certainly antique, 'just' antique or 17thC , its all good! when I think of the 'hayday' of guilding it's the late 18th through the 19th. Anywhere in that period is fine in this case, if I think it'll go on my Shamshir, and I can be bothered to construct a scabbard then it can stay, otherwise it'll be off on its travels! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 637
|
![]()
I think 19th century is a good dating
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,593
|
![]()
Hi Gene,
I'm glad I could help, and I apologize for not stating my findings more clearly. I meant to note that this style mount was of the form seen on 17th century Mughal scabbards, but clearly this is much later as Ward has aptly noted, and I entirely agree with 19th century assessment. It is important to remember that while blades were typically heirlooms, and hilt mounts and scabbards were often refurbished through generations. With this being the case, traditions in elemental style were typically maintained in degree, with of course subtle customizing according to the new owner. Since this is compellingly a Mughal piece, in my opinion it would not seem at all out of place on a shamshir, a highly prized weapon in Mughal courts. Essentially you are simply following a well established tradition ![]() All the best, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Sharp end
Posts: 2,928
|
![]() Quote:
![]() 17thC? Well I hadn't dared to think it was that early! ![]() Although probobly not suitable for my rather plain sword, certainly quite a cute little thing in its own right. Thank you very much for your help. Regards Gene |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|