The chhatri or umbrella

ksbhati · 10th October 2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Karni, nice to hear from you. Yes you are right, of course, but a thing like drums were given to people other than to royalty, generals and other high members of the community. The fact that a eunuch in a battle used a very high quality sword, with an umbrella mark,, does not mean he was royal, he may have been a body guard.

Jens

Hi Jens,

Weapons change hands all the time. There is an old saying "A weapon has no Masters...only the person wielding it!!". Just because the Eunuch was found with the weapon does not make him the original owner of the weapon. Captured Royal weapons of enemies may have been given to Eunuchs as a sign of disdain or contempt or to insult the vanquished in court. Also many Eunuchs were body guards specially of the Royal ladies and they may have had the right to use of royal weapons/arsenal. So it is difficult to say.

Best regards,

Karni

Jens Nordlunde · 20th October 2008, 12:19 PM

Egerton p. 125 writes about the Codrington Collection and mentions some of the things, and at one point he writes, ”Ch’hata. Red cotton velvet parasol, embroidered with gold. Mysore 1850. This is only permitted to be worn by such persons as have been presented with it by their prince”.

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd February 2019, 09:22 PM

Hi Mytribalworld,
Have you found out something about the eye since last - about ten years!
I think it is interesting, as several peoples have used the eye, so it is/was known world wide. But the meaning could have been quite different. It is, none the less, very interesting.
I do hope you will write again, as your findings will be very interesting to us.

As to the umbrella. I have two, one is very elegant inlaid in gold, and the other one is quite crude. My judgement is that the first one is from the Mughal time, and the other one is from the time after Aurangzeb, as it is quite crude and not gold inlaid. It seems as if after Aurangzeb, the parolsol was used by anyone who would like to be pompous, but not royal.

Jim McDougall · 2nd February 2019, 10:57 PM

Amazing! Jens, thank you for bringing back this thread!!!!
What a perfect background for the questions at hand of late and now we can use this background to add to! Thank you so much

ariel · 3rd February 2019, 04:20 AM

Elgood dedicated quite a lot of space to the ch’hatris in his Jodhpur book. Interestingly, he describes quite a lot of them as incorrect, implying their spurious nature.

My guess that just as with the cartouches with Shah Abbas’ name and signatures of Assadullah there was a brisk production and trade in fake ch’hatris. People are only human, and are ready to forge anything ( banknotes, passports, paintings etc) for a profit. Risks be damned!

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd February 2019, 02:00 PM

Here are two examples.
One while the umbrella still was royal - in gold on a katar, and the other one on a tulwar.

rand · 3rd February 2019, 02:53 PM

The umbrella applied with a cross hatching technique, either a gold wire or a gold sheet appliqué. The dots and triangular marks appear to be a form of punch inlay.

The umbrella gold overlay looks fairly thick, and in some places it seems to follow the wootz pattern. Is that true?

rand

3rd February 2019, 02:00 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Here are two examples. One while the umbrella still was royal - in gold on a katar, and the other one on a tulwar. Attached Images

3rd February 2019, 02:53 PM	#7
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 538	Katar Cross hatching & inlay The umbrella applied with a cross hatching technique, either a gold wire or a gold sheet appliqué. The dots and triangular marks appear to be a form of punch inlay. The umbrella gold overlay looks fairly thick, and in some places it seems to follow the wootz pattern. Is that true? rand

20th October 2008, 12:19 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Egerton p. 125 writes about the Codrington Collection and mentions some of the things, and at one point he writes, ”Ch’hata. Red cotton velvet parasol, embroidered with gold. Mysore 1850. This is only permitted to be worn by such persons as have been presented with it by their prince”.

2nd February 2019, 09:22 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Hi Mytribalworld, Have you found out something about the eye since last - about ten years! I think it is interesting, as several peoples have used the eye, so it is/was known world wide. But the meaning could have been quite different. It is, none the less, very interesting. I do hope you will write again, as your findings will be very interesting to us. As to the umbrella. I have two, one is very elegant inlaid in gold, and the other one is quite crude. My judgement is that the first one is from the Mughal time, and the other one is from the time after Aurangzeb, as it is quite crude and not gold inlaid. It seems as if after Aurangzeb, the parolsol was used by anyone who would like to be pompous, but not royal.

2nd February 2019, 10:57 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	Amazing! Jens, thank you for bringing back this thread!!!! What a perfect background for the questions at hand of late and now we can use this background to add to! Thank you so much

3rd February 2019, 04:20 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Elgood dedicated quite a lot of space to the ch’hatris in his Jodhpur book. Interestingly, he describes quite a lot of them as incorrect, implying their spurious nature. My guess that just as with the cartouches with Shah Abbas’ name and signatures of Assadullah there was a brisk production and trade in fake ch’hatris. People are only human, and are ready to forge anything ( banknotes, passports, paintings etc) for a profit. Risks be damned!