Hi Colin and Norman
,
thank you for your comments. It is difficult to see the extent of how deep the tang is situated in the hilt. I totally agree that the blade and hilt were not 'made' for each other....but functionally they 'work' ...the balance and the 'larger' sized hilt ensure that this was a 'good' sword.
As I said before I thought the blade was possibly European ....and perhaps therefore 'rat tailed'. (such a thin tang would not be fully secured by the resin and would require the extra fixing via the rivets).
I can only say with certainty that this 'marriage' occured a long time ago and is therefore not a recent 'botch up' for resale. This Tulwar came as a group of three weapons that have been 'partners' for a very long time. Each of them in equally poor condition. Another Tulwar and a British Yatagan sword bayonet a M1853 bayonet where the others in the group. Because of the date of the bayonet I wondered if these 3 were 'bring backs' from the Sepoy Revolt 1857.
The other Tulwar heavily rusted and with a thick layer of dark stabilised oxidation seems, likely to be old , 18th C ? The pommel is missing either due to rust or damage.
Norman, I cannot tell whether the pommel ring is original ....but I can say is it is quite old.....it was very heavily oxidised and only after a lot of cleaning , did I realised it was silver !!
All the best
David
.