Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stan S.
Jim, could you please elaborate on "Sikh tulwars also usually are with knuckleguard"? I was under an impression that Sikhs used a wide viriety of weapons and favored both knuckleguarded tulwar hilts and teh ones without a guard.
Also, I am curious as to what purpose was a wide, heavy and relatively straight blade intended for (like the ones pictured in this thread), as opposed to the shamshir-like type that are thinner and of a more pronounced curvature? Was it just a personal preference dictated by one's chosen fighting style? Aesthetics? Or something else?
|
Thank you very much Stan, both for the response and especially the questions. Regarding my comment of knuckleguarded tulwars and attribution to Sikhs could have been better worded. As has been noted, the weapons used by the Sikhs are widely varied, and as I was wryly once told by a Sikh, "if a weapon was used by a Sikh....then it is Sikh". In the research I did trying to find specific markings, symbols or characteristics distinctive to Sikh weapons, I found none answering that description definitively. Probably the only definite identifier would be inscription in gurmukhi script, which does not seem commonly used in this manner on weapons. As always I would welcome information to the contrary. The manner of hilt shown in Lews post is typically recognized as in the Udaipur style (in Rajasthan) and in this case of course likely 19th century. The diamond shape grip and the elongated rectangular langet are characteristic. Note the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade, a sound identifier of Indian blades, where shamshirs of course are without this feature. In India, many princely weapons were mounted with these Persian blades. The diamond grip in this case is no more an indicator of a Sikh weapon than any other feature. These type hilts are however relatively much more common, and recognized as relatively recent, even modern. The use of edged weapons in Sikh ceremonies, martial arts and religious observation is well established and many of these are likely found in these circumstances perhaps bring that perception .
The variations in tulwar pertaining to presence of knuckleguard vs. the absence of one seems, like with blades, largely preferential. I have personally always had an opinion that examples without guard were likely more of a courtly nature, where the guard of course was for protection in combat. Obviously this simplistic view is tenuous at best, as there are so many variations as to defeat that concept without too much effort. Also, with these examples the blades are clearly heavy fighting types, and the simple brass hilts obviously too austere for court weapons. Therefore my suggestion for court use would be better guaged on each weapon observed in context.
In G.N.Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour" New Delhi, 1980, p.104), the author describing the tulwar notes on the blades, "...there are all kinds of slightly curved blades and they vary enormously in size, curvature and quality".
Obviously an enormously broad statement, but finding enough consistancy to establish more clear axioms is a seemingly impossible task for Indian arms, still it is possible in many cases to evaluate a weapon collectively and by observed merits to plausibly suggest origins and use.
Regarding the straighter, or quite shallow curve, I would say of course yes, preference, aesthetics no. The use of a straight blade seems to have been a marked preference of the Marathas in southwest and central India, the Deccan. Considering the vast movements of the Marathas it is of course expected to find hybridization. It is claimed that the straight blade tulwar is termed the 'sukhela' and the term is presumed to derive from the Indian steel known as sakhela. In the Deccan, the more local term for this type blade on a sword was 'dhup'. Obviously in the case of hilt styles, it is emphatically a matter of preference locally and blades move about widely, much as is always the case as we well know.
Thank you again Stan for posting these!
All best regards,
Jim