This has been a most provocative thread!! and brought out some very interesting aspects of Indian arms as related to Chinese influence and vive versa. I must say Ibrahiim, you are truly an intrepid and tenacious researcher!!! Great links and resources, thank you!
I have tried to follow in kind, and it does seem that there must have been a degree of arms which entered the Indian sphere, as there was a great deal of trade activity with China via the varied East India companies from late 17th and into the 18th century.
It does seem that the Dutch had a factory in Peking (Beijing) in the late 17th but seem to have closed it early in the 18th. In these times most of the interest and reciprocity seem to have been the export of china and textiles, but around early 18th an interest developed in the decoration of sword hilts (known as Tonquinese, for those regions of N. Vietnam), but apparently thought to have been made in China.
While strong export of mercantile commodities seem well known, it does not seem that any export of arms took place in any sort of capacity as the Chinese had a very restrictive attitude toward foreign presence there and the exports seem to have filtered into the Philippines in various channels.
I have not been able to find more on the noted Beijing export in 1761, and by this period it seems that the Chinese courts while intrigued by outside styles, such as the Indian influence in some Qianlong hilts, had little to do with exporting arms. Though not exporting arms proper, they did however exert considerable influence in the arms of Europe, particularly the decoration forms known as chinoserie, Tonquinese and Japan had its shakudo.
Still it would be hard to imagine that a power such as China would not be involved in certain trade and export outside the direct control of the realm, and as Ibrahiim has noted, the quest for gold in remote ports and centers operated briskly in operations unlikely to be officially recorded.
We know that Chinese river pirates were present in regions of SE asia contiguous to India, and other regions in proximity.
The exchange and diffusion of all manner of materials of course must have been considerable in such circumstances, and while not technically supportable, it does seem to be reasonably plausible.
Returning to the matter of the 'tunkou' feature, I am more inclined to think of it entering these spheres from Ottoman influence rather than Chinese, despite its prevalence on many Qing swords. Many features of Central Asian and Indian weapons carry Ottoman influence from various sources, all of which were prevalent throughout the development of these arms.
As for its purpose, I tend to follow the thoughts of Philip Tom, as described in his "Military Sabres of the Qing Dynasty", that they were to stabilize the guard and secure the blade in the scabbard.
These were clearly not consistent on these Chinese sabres, whether in yuanshi or fangshi mounts regardless, and were not as far as I have seen ever on jian.
Still, the feature clearly became a vestigial notion on a number of weapons in other context ,and as seen on the sword here, and on daggers as discussed, whether physically represented or decoratively applied in koftgari or other means.
|