Poisoned pearls

[Mercenary]

Sometimes I speak about it. The problem with the knowledge of Indian weapons began when the European men started "studied" traditional Indian weapons in 19th. They were not ethnographers, art historians or culturologists. Just the brilliant British men who were interested in something curious from a mysterious distant country.
They were not in Japan. So we have genuine knowledge of Japanese weapons and excellent classification. They did not study diligently and did not classify Chinese weapons. Thank them for that. So we can something understand in Chinese weapons too.
You know on what kind of sources Pant was based. It is not interesting. His books are good as encyclopedias, not more.
Jauhar, jouhar, johar - a pearl, shine of pearl, essence (soul), quality, worth.
In poetical texts "jauhar blade" was not "waved" or any "high-carbon" steel :-)
We must remember that those people had another understanding about their weapons. They did not treat arms like just a piece of iron for murdering. They had many meanings for weapons, and a murder was the last of them.

Jauhar. This is a more complex concept than just some kind of steel. But without a proper understanding of this word we could never understand what pearls are doing inside blades.

Oh.. Indian word for self immolation in Persian was written the same way.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I have blades with steel bearings, pearls were also used, although they are very soft, but I have also heard about rubies being used.

It is true what Jim and Mercenary writes, that the logic we use to day can not be used if one want to understand how the Indian's thought centuries ago. How was the logic used in Europe centries ago, most certainly not like it is to day.
Another thing is, that in India there lived Hindu's, Muslims - not all arrived at the same time, Arabs, people from Africa, Turky, Persia, Afghanistan, and a lot of other countries. It is likely that each of these groups had their own logic and their own believes.
To try to understand this, it takes a lot of reading texts from authors of different origins.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Sometimes I speak about it. The problem with the knowledge of Indian weapons began when the European men started "studied" traditional Indian weapons in 19th. They were not ethnographers, art historians or culturologists. Just the brilliant British men who were interested in something curious from a mysterious distant country.
They were not in Japan. So we have genuine knowledge of Japanese weapons and excellent classification. They did not study diligently and did not classify Chinese weapons. Thank them for that. So we can something understand in Chinese weapons too.
You know on what kind of sources Pant was based. It is not interesting. His books are good as encyclopedias, not more.
Jauhar, jouhar, johar - a pearl, shine of pearl, essence (soul), quality, worth.
In poetical texts "jauhar blade" was not "waved" or any "high-carbon" steel :-)
We must remember that those people had another understanding about their weapons. They did not treat arms like just a piece of iron for murdering. They had many meanings for weapons, and a murder was the last of them.

Jauhar. This is a more complex concept than just some kind of steel. But without a proper understanding of this word we could never understand what pearls are doing inside blades.

Oh.. Indian word for self immolation in Persian was written the same way.

Very well explained Mercenary, and you are very right about the importance of striving for better understanding of ethnographic arms in their cultural context. Early writers for the most part did see the many forms and unusual styles of weaponry, but mostly as 'colonial' curiosities and souveniers to line parlors.
Much of this derived from the Anglo-centric attitude, well seen in the writing of Sir Richard Burton. However writers like Egerton brought at least well documented observations and cataloguing of weapons classified into the areas which seemed to be the predominant regions of use.

Burton as I have understood, regarded Professor Oppert, who was indeed interested in anthropology, as a bit over the top as he 'regarded too much toward the Indian arms as from metaphysical perspective'.

Other writers followed suit, and stuck pretty much to categorization and arbitrary classifications, avoiding any deeper view into symbolism and meaning. this remained the case, until scholars like Jens entered the scope of study. Actually Jens was involved in the printing of one of the seminal modern works on these arms, "The Indian Sword" by Philip Rawson, 1967.
This was actually a catalog work of classification study of the arms in the Victoria & Albert Museum.
While this was 'more of the same', Jens wanted to move to the next level, and sought the answers to the ever unanswered deep questions that had been ignored by collectors and writers, who simply wanted classification.

As his work continued, in 2004, Robert Elgood brought forward the outstanding reference, "Hindu Arms and Ritual", which at last placed in print the very perspective in which these Indian arms should be studied. While others had published articles which also did have that in degree, this reference pretty much 'put it on the map'.

The Pant reference (1980) is as noted, with its flaws, but for some time had stood as a key reference, though its attention to more subjective aspects was also deeply lacking .

It is quite well known that the Western inquisitiveness often, perhaps too much so, invents or contrives almost fanciful notions of how many unusual weapons are used in these native contexts. However, in many cases, these may not be as far off as we think, as in many cases, certain traditional , superstitious or even metaphysical concepts are represented in designs, motif and other elements.
These, as you note, can only be well recognized by the true knowledge and understanding of the people who used the arms we study, and what THEY believed.
This is what we know as the STUDY of ethnographic arms, not just collecting and cataloguing them.

Good notes on the linguistics, and clearly there are transliteration issues, which constantly plague the efforts of those who involved in these studies.
By discussing, as here, we achieve a broader view of the words or topics considered and can better understand the appropriate perspective.

[Jim McDougall]

Jens,
we crossed posts.
Good points on the diversity of cultures, religions and languages of India, which certainly has added to the difficulties in understanding of the weapons. These factors have made the study of the arms of India a most formidable field, and one often steered clear of by collectors and scholars for those reasons.

It takes deep, focused and tenacious study to even scratch the surface of the deeper meanings which are inherent in these arms. They are indeed far more than simple tools of sinister purpose, and are icons representing the art and culture of the people who held and often used them.

We have learned much from you, I know I have, and have ever been amazed by the obscure, esoteric and often very rare works you have constantly consulted , and which always presented these kinds of questions you have diligently pursued.

Getting to the pearls. In our discussions over the years, it seems you noted that the placement of genuine pearls into these channels would be most difficult with the heat involved as they were placed into these.
Also, it seems these channels were typically loaded with bearings, and that they were mostly for producing significant sound as they are wielded in parade or ceremonial circumstances. I always thought this feature was in line with such embellishments on temple swords, and other festoons which served as apotropaics on these arms.

It seems like precious stones used in their talismanic connotations would be placed in hilt decoration as usual rather than imbedded in the blades in channels, but as you note, exceptions are always possible.

[ariel]

I am wondering what kind of poison might have been applied to those balls.
Obviously, it was applied at the very late right before the battle: heat, UV light, humidity,rain, dust, dirt would degrade the organic constituents. The contact with internal tissues must have been very short, and no poison that comes to my mind would kill instantaneously ( otherwise, what's the purpose?)

Hamlet was killed by the most toxic poison Claudius could find. However, before his death he was able to dispatch both Laertes and Claudius. Commodus stabbed Maximus with a poisoned blade. All of us know how it ended....