Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercenary
Jim, thanks for sharing this beautiful dagger!
Rajput culture largely followed Mughal culture. Your dagger is closer to Deccan culture.
P.S. Lumping the Deccan sultanates and the Vijayanagara Empire into a single category called "South India" is a strategic mistake. It will haunt us for many years to come.
|
Thank you so much Mercenary, it is very gratifying to see one of my weapons acquired many years ago when my knowledge of Indian arms was so elementary noted with such recognition. It is a most complex field, and I still feel relatively a novice as I return to these studies of years ago.
What I have come to understand is that in the study of India, and its arms, there are separate denominators in approach, whether geographic, cultural, linguistic or religious to consider the broader spectrums.
I agree that the Rajput culture largely was aligned with that of the Mughals, although they were in degree often either aligned or at odds with them. As often the case naturally this would vary depending on the clans and varied groups in the Rajput spectrum and in different periods.
With the Deccan, again, it is a matter of perspective in determining exactly what parameters comprised the Deccan, but your point is well made that the 'Southern India' description is far too broad and ill defined to accurately depict these complex regions and the peoples and cultures within.
To describe the Vijayanagara kingdom as in any way connected to the Sultanates of Deccan under the heading 'South India' is as ludicrous as lumping Texas into the rest of the states in the U.S. culturally.
As you note, many of these faux pas in the years of literature on Indian arms and studies do remain a haunting element in circulating resources.
Returning to katars for example, the 'name game' as we have called it here in the many years of contentious debate, as Pant (1980) revealed.....these transverse grip daggers were actually 'jamdhar' NOT katar, which was more the traditional dagger/knife form. The transposing of the terms in Egerton (if I recall) forever made the dagger....the katar...as every arms writer following simply perpetuated the improper term.
I dont think we ever reached a consensus on the origins of the katar, and just how far into antiquity these distinctly configured daggers existed. What can be agreed on is that they were likely known to the Rajputs by late 16th c. and that they were well known in this open hilt form in the Deccan as well.
The 'South Indian' (just kidding)..Vijayanagara form was in variation with a 'hood'which was a gauntlet type hand guard. These of course appear to have been the prototypes for the gauntlet sword, pata.
All best regards
Jim