View Single Post
Old 4th April 2016, 05:13 PM   #14
GePi
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 95
Default

That's a lot of great information you guys are providing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Hi Gernot,
Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar.
There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this.

It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century.
Thanks your for the welcome and for posting that very interesting article, Jim.
I wonder if it is possible to track down this specific owner. Google searching the latin transliteration of his name has yielded no results unsurprisingly.
Concerning the shape of the blade I was wondering if it could be an import, perhaps turkish, though it doesn't have the little "step"(?) that seperates the yelman from the rest of the blade on the kilij blades that I have seen. Although I'm a novice, I have looked at quite a few pictures of antique tulwars, and I have not seen this particular kind of blade shape with a tulwar hilt, or any other hilt to be honest, before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde
However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.
Ah, is this hilt style attributed to this particular dynasty or rather the general region?
The sword that pictured right above has a hilt with a shape very similar to the one on my sword though, perhaps traded in or gifted, as Jim mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland_M
it is unclear to see, but maybe the tulwar was opened and nickel- or chrome plated. The last picture from your first post makes me think so.

This could be the explanation for the wasteful usage of adhesive.
Hi, Roland,

yes, that could explain why it is still mostly bright and shiny under the dirt.
Is there a way to verfiy that?
Curious that it seems to have been neglected so badly afterwards.



Thanks all, you've been of great help already.
GePi is offline   Reply With Quote