In further examining the descriptions in both Elgood and Stone, it is interesting to note that the swords Joe posted seem closer in form to the mel puttah bemoh (Stone p.444, fig.566) which has a long rapier type blade.
Elgood illustrates one of these swords (p.94, 8.51) and notes a stone image from Virabhadra Temple, Lepakshi (op.cit. p.94, 8.49) that depicts a warrior with a large two handed sword and dating it from the 1530's.
It would seem that these two handed swords were used further back than the example in Stone (dated 18th c.south India attribution ) and the example in Elgood ( shown as Deccani, early 17th c.).
The examples from Hermann Historica appear to be in excavated condition, and the hilt elements quite rudimentary in comparison to the hilts of those shown in Stone and Elgood, which carry a bit more structure. This would suggest that these excavated examples may have been from the earlier period noted by Elgood, and would confirm the use of two handed swords in India into the medieval period.
With these in thier rudimentary form and excavated condition and the examples shown in development in Elgood and Stone, it is interesting to consider not only the use of the two handed sword in India, but the diffusion and development of the form. While that movement seems to be chronologically from the south, into the Deccan and further north with the elaborate Rajput and Mahratta examples more decorative and with the fluted orbs separating the hilts as seen in Stone (p.643 #7) and Elgood (p.95, 8.54), it seems the influence carried into Assam with the Naga two handed dao.
Elgood notes that the two hand form became redundant with the advent of the khanda with basket hilt and projecting spur in the 16th c.
It is always good to have an opportunity to research and discuss the weapons of India and again, I'm glad Joe posted these!
Best regards,
Jim