i had not intended this post to be a statement of the difference of indian vs persian but it seems as though it lends itself to this. i am not complaining as maybe it needs to be discussed.
jens, you say -
and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change
this was my point exactly. the more you read, the more dominated you are with the general concensus. if you wanted to seperate yourself from this, where do you start? do you forget everything you've read and start afresh? i think this may be the only way to move forward. jens, you show one blade that is distinctly indian and one is without a doubt persian. and yet, the fittings of this 'persian' dagger is indian. now, do we assume that it is persian because fiegel and his peers say so?
it is hard to detach yourself away from the current thought, and i am as guilty as any for doing the same. if a dagger is indian in form, and yet the blade seems persian, we should assume it is indian and take the journey to convince ourselves otherwise, instead of the other way around. otherwise, we are all guilty of assumption.
the patterns are deceptive, and the more i look into mughal influence, the more the world opens up. we have our definate sources in egerton and hendley (and a small handfull of others). but, we know for a fact that mistakes were made, and yet we still jump on a well known bandwagon and scream persian, when we should be assuming indian, and asking persian. once again, i state i am guilty as well. we are all afraid to doubt our peers and yet surely by questioning, we are furthering what they initiated. they never claimed to be experts, but just took what was known at the time a little further.
ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were -
'More "advanced" than the Indians'
is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. the records clearly show the persian influence of the mughal courts. their presence in india did more than influence the local style, and it developed into a hybrid, as well as a simulation of a fashionalble style of the age. in my studies, i have drawn a distinct line between the two cultures and for the first time, i doubt my own findings. these doubts are not sudden (over dinner??) but instilled over a confusion of conflicting data.
rick (rsword) showed a sword recently that we all enjoyed pushing our opinions on, and yet we were all reluctant to claim anything against our known sources. his sword showed a distinct persian influence over a definate indian style. so, what about taking it further. if the fashion of the time was persian, and not the underlying hindu culture, why do we not assume the 'persian' blades were not created locally to suit the current trend. why do we all claim that the ingots were exported to persia and not complete blades. why do we assume that the indians exported ingots and then imported complete blades made by the persian artisans. i'm not saying this didnt happen, but i know for a fact that the indian artisans were not as secondarly to their persian superiors (???) as some like to assume. where is this information coming from?
if the mughal courts imported their 'home' culture to india, why would this stop at bladesmithing.
for the first time in ove rone hundred years, the academic world is beginning to branch away from the assumed knowledge of their contemporaries. this division happened some time ago in the higher-end collective world and its about time that india has had the acclaim it deserved. yes, it was over-run with a dominant culture, but it did so admirably and also kept its own tradition to run alongside its 'conqueror'.
can anyone claim the persian artisan was more advanced than the intricate work of tamil nadu, which fought to keep its native style throughout an islamic dominance and a moghul annoyance (sorry to any aurangzeb fans, but he never truly conquered the deccan as he liked to have claimed)
ariel, your claim of rank amateurism is admirable (but not believed by anyone
). this stance just shows an open mind. your personal opinion should overshadow your views, as this shows a reluctance to listen to others.
not quite sure where the above rant has led, but i'm still deeply entrenched in the indian camp. the truth may be obvious, or shockingly opposing general thought, but i know the answers are not quite apparant as yet but we can only hope they become known during our collective lifetimes.