![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
|
![]()
Hello,
on finding this tulwar I was quite impressed by the amount of curve at the beginning of the false edge - does anyone recognize the particular type? Many thanks. Last edited by stephen wood; 23rd July 2008 at 03:10 PM. Reason: spelling |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 520
|
![]()
I've seen other Tulwar with highly curved blades. I have seen some of them described as shamshir when the blade cuved this much even though they had tulwar hilts. I don't know which is the proper naming. Someone here will. This looks like a great blade the tip flares some a little like a kilij. My impression from the picture is that you have a good find. As I said though others will better be able to tell you
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
Hi Stephen,
This is a beautiful example of a tulwar, all the more so for its simplicity which suggests it is primarily a fighting weapon without the ceremonial affectations. The uniform light pitting nicely reflects its age into likely 18th century, as well as the style which suggests to me it is probably from Rajasthan or regions into Punjab. The blade with yelman also has a pronounced ricasso at the terminus of the blade edge near the hilt. It seems there has been considerable debate on this, but there is a vaguely described tulwar form attributed primarily to Sikhs termed 'halab'. In the description it, as noted, includes reference to finger guard, and it seems possible this raised ricasso might meet that definition. The extreme upturn and yelman on this blade is unusual, but by no means unique and it seems that Indian blades with yelman are mostly of 18th century into the opening of the 19th. It seems there are likely more specific references not at hand at the moment, but I would say at first glance, this tulwar is quite likely either Sikh or Rajput and of the regions and period noted. The Persian term shamshir refers to those curved blades which radius to a point without yelman. The Mughal courts were of course highly characterized by Persian influence, which added confusion to terminology with tulwar a generally applied term used in India for sword, and the Persian term applied to swords with the angled pommel hilt. I have seen sabres with Persian style hilt and Indian flueret langets and tulwar quillon terminals with knuckleguard called 'Persian style hilt tulwar'. I have usually considered these from Sind, but research remains incomplete. As always, more research will likely reveal more! ![]() A very nice warrior! All the best, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 23rd July 2008 at 11:42 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 637
|
![]()
This is not particulary unusuall. Yes it is persian influenced.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 119
|
![]()
now that i have mine, pictures should be forthcomming
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
|
![]()
...many thanks for your help.
when it arrives I will post more images and dimensions. Presumably the index finger was looped over the quillon? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,336
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,336
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
The age part frightens me ... i'm only half year "younger" ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,336
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,725
|
![]()
Rick, you are correct. On both counts.
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|