Chris, you are most welcome, and it is extremely rewarding to see someone approaching the often daunting field of Indian arms with such a genuinely investigative approach.
I am as always glad to see Jens add the outstanding perspective he constantly shares here on these fascinating swords.
As he well notes, many sources on these arms are written many years ago, and by those who were amidst the sphere of the British Raj. In this vast colonial network, there was considerable diffusion of weapon forms and decorative styles. It seems these writers did pretty well keeping in mind that the constant exhibitions, durbars and various key events brought together all of these elements quite typically outside their regular context.
As Jens notes, the grain of salt caveat is of course a standard with this in mind, but these sources do present a worthwhile benchmark to look for consistancies with which to establish more defined classifications.
As you note, the size of the grip is often noticeably small for our western hands, a topic often discussed on these pages over the years.
It has often been held that the so called 'Indian ricasso' I mentioned was specifically to allow for the forefinger to extend over the quillon and avoid being cut by the blade near the hilt.
Many disagree, however it is pointed out that tulwar combat seldom had sword to sword contact, parrying was with the dhal (shield).
As for the koftgari decoration, it would be difficult to assess the status or station of one having such quality swords, but broadly they could be seen as courtly weapons as these retinues were considerable throughout so many regions in India.
|