[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I have looked at the hilt situation on the project sword and feel that the entire hilt question is critical to the overall answer to this phenomena. Thus I turn to Stuart Carey Welsh . INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum . page 270. however, I note that the front outside cover has a magnificent piece of artwork which was painted in India in about 1620 and is lavishly adorned in Chinese influence. Part of the story is present in that picture as not only were the Chinese merchants on the Indian coast and active in securing South African gold etc. from Indian traders but the Chinese artisans were active also in influencing Indian ateliers and no doubt in the transfer both ways of fine art techniques and subject matter. This must have included the types and decorations of weapons probably both ways.

Please note the Pistol grip dagger described and pictured at page 270; from Stuart Carey Welsh. INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum says;

Quote''That presumably this was carved for Aurangzeb. The origin of the form can be traced to the Deccan where it must have been admired by Aurangzeb and adapted for his use during his years there as Viceroy. In the early stages of their evolution which probably began in the Southern Deccan, pistol grips terminated not in the round abstract shape but in Parrot heads, complete with beaks and eyes. Deccani examples of the 17th C. already incorporate this change. After Aurangzeb created a vogue for them, pistol grips became common at the Mughal Court during the late 17th and 18th C. some of them repeat the original parrot design.''Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.