Indian sword blades

[Jens Nordlunde]

The length of the Indian sword has puzzled me for a long time, but while reading Elgood’s ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’, I found an explanation. On pages 205-16 he writes about ‘Nujum al-‘Ulum’, and in section 1 the author of’Nujum al-‘Ulum’ writes. “About the types/conditions (ahwal) of swords. A sword is the best of arms and is regarded as superior and noblest of all arms in defending against enemy. Therefore I begin with this. Those who are aware of the art of using a sword or are expert in it all agree that swords are of three types, the superior, the middle and the inferior type of sword.
The superior sword is one, which is fifty fingers-width long while the inferior is twenty-five fingers-width in length and this is called a nimcha. The middle type of sword falls between these two lengths. One must take care while wearing these swords that the number of fingers of measurement should be even rather than odd. The reason for this is that the sword has its own absolute (tamam) influence in overcoming an enemy.
Moreover you should know that the masters and experts of this art that any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga (which are essential to the infidels of India and hang round their neck), or the profile of a standard (alam) or the leaves of papal tree which are very well known in India; or the profile of the blue-water lily flower (nilofar, Nymphaea cyanea), or an earring. On the occasion of actual fighting one should use such swords and on other occasions when not fighting it is very auspicious to have such swords on one’s person. Furthermore, the blade should not be short in length or be broken or cracked, should have very good and brilliant watering (ab) and should produce a good resonance. If something is hit against it, its sound should be very clear, In short, a sword should have all the necessary good qualities. Its point, which according to the Indians is called kori, is like the leaf of a tree called cow’s tongue (the Indians call it tinalakie), or like the leaf of the plant called bamboo (binu), ore cane or reed (nai), sharp and pointed. The Indians regard a sword of this type as one of good qualities.
When tried and experienced it was found that the smell of the good sword should be like a lotus flower or a kaner/chanar flower, which is found everywhere in India; or is could smell like must (mad), the smell of an elephant in rut, or like the smell of certain oils. The indications of bad (mazmum) sword are that the johar resembles poisonous leprosy sores, or that it bears on it the forms of a headless man, a kite or any of the forty-seven (or forty-nine) forms of scorpion. That the sword bears irregularities or cracks and does not look well, or that it smells like the fat (charbi) from fat-tailed sheep. Or that it smells like cow’s urine, slimy mud, animal’s guts or the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht). The use of such a sword in time of war, or the carrying of such a sword in peacetime, is inauspicious.
The next thing that should be known concerning swords is that, if there are undulations on the sword blade that one wishes to make flat or, if the sword is extremely long and one wants to cut the blade down, the job should be done with a file and not with an instrument like an ishkanah or a hammer and the like, because we have come to the conclusion after experience that work done in this latter fashion does not have good results and leaves inauspicious influence in the sword.”

We still don’t know what kind of a measure a ‘finger’ is, but on page 214 there is a clue.
“You should know that the length and breadth of all arms described in this chapter heve been measured by fingers. It is therefore appropriate to specify the meaning of a finger. It should be made clear that when we say finger it is not the length of the finger but the breadth at the tip. The average breadth of a finger is eight grains kept width wise side by side. But since of men’s fingers are not equal in size, some being broad and others thin, therefore a limit has been fixed so that a standard can be set, namely, whenever we say finger it should be eight grains. For example, if it is said that a certain arm is ten fingers long it means its length is equal to eighty grains kept side by side widthways, and so on and so forth.
These are the arms which were used in ancient times in India but gradually during the reign of each king there were improvements and new arms were invented with a view to better defence."

We now know that a fingertip was equal to eight grains, but what is eight grains equal to? It does not say what kind of grain was used, and is it not likely that grains at the time (1570), were smaller than today?

[Yannis]

The most common grains worldwide are wheat and rice. I have no wheat home but I tried with 2 different varieties of rice. 8 grains of one variety gives 2.5cm and the other gives 1.5cm. So the average is 2cm exactly. My measurements are in kitchen rice without the husk. If today’s rice is more fat than the medieval, we counter balance with the lack of the husk (what am I saying ????).
Conclusion: Superior swords are 1 meter long, inferior are 50cm and the middle ones are in between these sizes. Very good!

My swords smell mostly oils but I am not sure how the blood of a tortoise (dallak pusht) does smell.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Yannis,

Very good, my first thought was rice, but I thought I would wait till others had a chance to think it over.

We have three different kinds of rice in the household, and all of them measure 2.3 mm. When measuring my index finger at the tip, it measures 2.5 mm. So we are getting close – but this leads us to the often-asked question – why are the Indian hilts so small?

A katar I just picked out of a bundle shows 8 cm from side guard to side guard, and even if we measurers after the 2.3 cm for eight grains (2.3 by 5 = 11.5 cm) – one could still not hold such a katar (normal size).

This is one important thing; another is the sound – which is very important as far as I can see, then comes the smell, which is also important. The decoration is, of course important too, as it showed onlookers that this was an outstanding weapon.

Correction. It should of course be 2.3 by 4 = 9.2 cm. Sorry.

[Tim Simmons]

I have wondered this, you see small hilts in other Asian countries but most often from the subcontinent. Possible reasons-
1 Small hands from the under nourishment of serf soldiers?
2 Small hands because soldiers are little more than boys?
3 Small hilts on fancy weapons because they never going to be used by their owners in anger ?
I think these reasons are valid as one does see weapons with what would be considered normal size hilts. Tim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Tim,

This question has, as you most likely know, been discussed several times, and will no doubt be discussed again later.

It is likely that the Indians used big boys for soldiers, when they could not get others, but I doubt very much that the small hilts were made be course of that, as most of the soldiers were grown up men.

I don’t think the hilts were made small be course the swords were not supposed to be used, as all Indian swords were made to be used, although I grant you, that some were not made for battle, but their hilts were of the same size as the swords used for battle.

At one point it was suggested that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon, I have never seen this grip on the miniatures I have seen, and to do this, is to ‘ask’ to get it cut off. Should the man survive the wound/operation, the hilt would of course fit – but still. Besides should this have been the case, they would no doubt have had a ring attached to the quillon for protection of the index finger.

It has also been suggested that the hilt had to be narrow so the hand was forced into a tight grip. This is not likely, as I don’t think anyone would be able to fight for a whole day with his finger pressed together like that.

Another suggestion is, that people in India, just like in Europe, were smaller two hundred years ago than they are now. This is true, and could be part of the answer, another part of the answer could be, that the Indians maybe have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, but if we go back to the eight grains being the average of a finger, the hand would still be too broad – so, so far the answer is open.

BTW try to measure the hilts of the European swords from the same period, and why you are at it, try to measure the hilts of pesh kabz and other knifes – why are these hilts bigger?

Maybe it is a combination of the above mentioned, although I don’t buy the one with the trigger finger.

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Jens,
I think the finger thing is rubbish, would you keep hold of a weapon when your finger had just been removed? In the days when I practised fencing, epee and sabre fencing involed a lot of first cuts/stabs to the hand, wrist and arm, a sort of 1,2,3 to the head. The loss of a finger would not be fun and leave you wide open for finnishing off. Fighting would be very difficult with a weapon too small for your hand, it would just not move the way you wanted. I suspect the lighter body frame as was the same in europe is very possible especially with under nourished levies. The boy soldier is also very possible when you bare in mind that in some cultures you can be a man at around 15. Tim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Tim,

I doubt that the question on boy soldiers is valid here. True that they did exist, but you don’t make the hilts in a general size due to the boy soldiers, as they were relatively few compared to the rest of the army, and as you can read in the books, many were veteran soldiers, or tailors, carpenters, brick layers, and so on – they often made the greatest bulk of the army.

They would likely make the size of the hilts to fit the average hand, and the boy soldiers would have to live with it, even if their hands were smaller. You do occasionally see hilts ‘tailored’ to someone, as the hilts are bigger than normal, but it is relatively seldom.

[Rick]

Being average height 5'8" and wearing a medium glove ; my hand across the palm (not counting the thumb) measures 3 5/8" .

A tulwar hilt fits quite nicely for whatever it's worth .



/oh yes BTW , I'm Anglo Saxon

[Aqtai]

Up until now because of other commitments (wife, 2 children and mortgage) I've limited myself to books and browsing sites such as this one and have avoided collecting.

However I aquired my first piece of Ethnographic weaponry today, mainly because it was cheap!

It is a 19th century tulwar hilt (allegedly).

It fits my ungloved hand very nicely. I'm 5 foot 11 inches tall and weigh 15 stone.





BTW any advice as to how genuine this piece is and how to care for it would be much appreciated.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well, you see, we can all try a tulwar hilt, and some may it fit, while others have far too big hands, I think it must have been like that with the users, but I also think, that the users can have had smaller hands – or the hilts would have been made bigger. I think this discussion is interesting, but the start of this topic was on the blades, so maybe this should be taken to another topic.

[Tim Simmons]

I am going to sound outragous now but could small hilted fancy weapons be just that, for show. Like most weapons of this class they are normally collected in exellent condition and often show no signs of use. I think they must surely have largely been the property of noncombatants or hunting items of the ruling class to survive in such numbers and such pristine condition. Tim

[B.I]

hi jens,
interesting to note that indians (boy thats general!) still class the khanda's length by an amount of 'hands' eg 10 hands in length etc. maybe this was the fingers, as quoted (4 fingers together equals a hand).
ths sort of information must be relatively easy to track down, as i'm sure a unit of measurement would be universal (ie not restricted to arms alone, and there are enough trading accounts of the time to find the term used again.

you quoted -

any sword is to be regarded auspicious which has the mark of an umbrella or a sivalinga

the Nujum al-Ulum is interesting as it is a rare survival of deccani manuscripts. it is interesting for a sultanate manuscript to revere both an 'infidel' symbol in the sivalinga (a hindu symbol, prevelant in the south) and an umbrella, supposed to be a symbol of the moghul emperor, even though they were of a sunni faith.
it goes to show that the religions of the day, although apposing, had respect for each other. this obviously makes the dating and opinion of 'indian' arms all the more harder, with such crossovers from diversly different states and religions. a sufi soldier (or leader) would happily possess a mughal blade, or even seek one out if it was so revered.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Rick

Being average height 5'8" and wearing a medium glove ; my hand across the palm (not counting the thumb) measures 3 5/8" .

A tulwar hilt fits quite nicely for whatever it's worth .

/oh yes BTW , I'm Anglo Saxon

Individual variation is considerable. I'm of similar height and ethnicity to Rick, but my fist measures 4 1/4 inches cross and I wear an XL glove! Tulwar hilts (and I have a half dozen to try) are extremely uncomfortable and will only accommodate three fingers on the handle. However, an 18th C. firangi with an Indian basket hilt, and a couple of other examples of this hilt, are much more roomy and admit my whole hand comfortably. Why do you think the later hilt style was so much smaller? Is this related to how the swords were used?

Ian.

[B.I]

hi ian,
most firangis where made to incorporate a padded interior. some had holes in the guards to tie to, some didnt and the padding tied around the guard with cord. this may explain the difference in size. maybe also firangis were more common in the south, a different tribe/caste.
i know of a collection of tulwars, all made 'over-sized'. my hand (large) easily fits into all. as jens noted, the indians were in general of a smaller size (still are now) with many exceptions. this goes also for antique tulwars - in general small with many exceptions.
i think the size thing has been an on-going debate from generations past ours, and probably will continue as we can only speculate.
the rajputs were a small race (as noted in accounts) and many swords came from rajesthan. annup singh, a rajput maharaja of the 17thC was noted as having a brother of immense size, and most of the larger weapons in the armoury (which still exists) probably belonged to him.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rick and Ian,

I am 72’’ small, I don’t know how many feet that makes, and my hand is 4’’ across, so Ian is right, we come in all sizes (I think it is English inches, but I am not quite sure).

BTW can anyone tell me, why English and American feet, inches are different? It would be easier if everyone on this forum used metres, centimetres and millimetres, then measurers given on the forum would be the same – now one can’t be sure if the measurers given are in English feet, inches or in American, as nothing is noted – just 3’ 4’’ – sigh.

Hi Brian,

You are right these measurers were used in shipbuilding, architecture, bridge building and in a lot of other places, like maybe carpet making, or they would not have been able to say ‘so and so many knots pr finger’. Only here it was not grains, but feet – Indian feet – but the ground structure of this measure must have been grains. It is the first time I have seen grains mentioned when it comes to measures, so it is interesting to see one of their smaller measures being mentioned. It is mentioned that the tip of the index finger should be equivalent to eight grains (2.3-2.5 cm), the problem occurs if a hands width is mentioned/used, as not all the fingers have the same size, or maybe they had a standard for a hand (but if they had, why say fifty fingers, why not say so and so many hands?), like they must have had for a foot. If they had not had measures like that, a building like Taj Mahal would never have been build, nor would all the forts and, and, and…

[Rick]

Hi Jens , you are six feet tall ( 6' ) .

In England and America the inch is the same ; 12 inches (symbol " ) make one foot (symbol ' ) .

I have to use a conversion table for meters , centimeters , and millimeters as I suppose you must have to also for feet and inches .

I am by no means any kind of a mathemetician so the whole concept makes my brain melt .

And now we talk of grains of unknown origin and size .

Now I must ask a question ; we are reading from a Muslim manuscript, yes ?

Is this a Muslim translation from a Hindu manuscript or an arbitrary Muslim ideal ?


I find myself further confused by the term 'sword' as a sword is not just a blade alone but incorporates a hilt to make it functional ; so when we talk about this subject of length is it really just the blade or is this just an assumption because nowhere have I seen the term blade used in the original quote .

Addendum :

I did a little googling on Hindu weights and measures :
http://tinyurl.com/bgxxf

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rich, you area beaty, and I will read the link to morrow. Jens

[Jim McDougall]

This is, as always with Jens' observations and queries on arms & armour, completely fascinating! and noting the source for this material being Dr. Elgood's brilliant work "Hindu Arms and Ritual" , extremely well expected.
Robert Elgood has approached the study of Indian arms in the long overdue perspective in which they have needed to be viewed, with the understanding of the religious and ethnographic symbolism and belief that explains them.
Until this important work, most of the weapons of India have been viewed as nearly standardized forms such as the tulwar, khanda, katar and so on without any consideration for the decorative elements, motif and auspicious symbolism imbued in these weapons. The many hybrids and innovative variants of weapon forms well known from Indian armouries remain mostly unexplained curiosities which have generated considerable western speculation concerning thier use. It would seem that in many cases, such explanation may lie in symbolism rather than pragmatic application.

Concerning the measurements as presented in the book, and in the outstanding discussion and observations posted on this thread, I would like to add the following, which I found in the book "The Wonder that was India" by Arthur Basham ( London, 1954) on p.503:

8 yava (barleycorns)= 1 angula (fingers breadth, 3/4")
12 angulas = 1 vitasti (span, 9")

I recall some time ago researching the Khevsurs of the remote regions of the Caucusus in Georgia, and Richard Halliburton's observations on his visit to their secluded enclaves in the 1930's ("Seven League Boots"). He describes the popularity among the men of duelling, often as sport, but occasionally very deadly in matters of dispute. In the sporting event the warriors wore mail, helmets and fought with sword and buckler. If one participant was accidentally wounded, the wound was measured with barley seeds, and the compensation to be paid computed to be paid in cows by such measure.
There was considerable trade and contact with northern regions of India from early times, and many influences seem to have diffused from there. Possibly this rather ancient form of measuring was one of them?

In the importance of length and other important features discussed concerning the auspicious significance applied in these important swords, I am wondering how the use of 'phirangi' or foreign trade blades was viewed in them. Would the 'pratistha' ritual described by Elgood on p.105 be considered effective in imbuing the required transubstantiation (some word eh! ) or would these blades
have been considered less than acceptible?

Best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the link, interesting to read about the people living on the subcontinent so many years ago, and about their advanced knowledge.
The book is, as mentioned before, ’Nujum al-‘Ulum’ and here is what Robert Elgood writes about it. ‘This Bijapur manuscript dated 1570 in three places, is a well-written document that considers weapons’ lore, predominately Hindu.’
And a bit later something interesting. ‘Much of the information regarding the casting of horoscopes for the various types of weapons is omitted, being largely repetitious, though the author’s obsessive concern with planetary influences should be noted.’
It is well known that Indian weapons often were decorated with talismanic signs, but it is new to me, that they also made horoscopes for the different kind of weapons.
I think the term ‘sword’, here must refer to the blade without the hilt, but it is not quite clear.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the nice words, and thanks for your research.
It is very interesting that you found this 8 yava (barleycorns)= 1 angula (fingers breadth, 3/4")
12 angulas = 1 vitasti (span, 9"), as we here have both the corns and the finger width, and what more is, it fits very well. ¾ inch by 4 fingers = 3 inch = 7.8 cm. Does it say from where the author Arthur Basham has these information’s?
I have tried to measure some tulwar hilts, and the room for the hand varies from 7 cm to 8 cm. This will give a firm, but not a strained grip.
In the notes to his book Elgood writes: ‘Agba’ (Arabic) = angul (Hindi) = angusht (Persian), all meaning a finger’s width. In south-east Asia the thumb width is used to measure keris blades to decide if they are auspicious.’

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
The references I found in Basham's book were in the appendix, and were presented without specific reference or footnotes. It is interesting to note in his introduction he thanks numerous institutions and individuals, including interestingly a Mr. P.Rawson! and the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. Presumably the material was derived from the undoubted wealth of trade records and documents held in the library of that institution.

A few comments concerning the ongoing discussion about the notably small grip size on many Indian swords. There has been long standing debate and speculation about the established blade feature on Indian tulwar blades known as the 'Indian ricasso', which is the flat unsharpened section of the blade edge nearest the hilt. It has long been suggested that this feature was intended specifically for the placement of the swordsmans finger wrapped around the quillon to reinforce and better direct his cut impact. It seems that the use of the sword in Indian combat typically did not involve blade to blade contact, and parrying depended on the shield or guarding with the armored forearm. If armored gauntlets were worn by warriors, would the finger actually be jeapordized in combat situations where such blade to blade contact would not have been necessarily practiced?
In Italian swordsmanship, which eventually influenced considerably that of Europe, the placement of the finger wrapped around quillons was well established and directly effected the development of the hilt with finger guards and eventually the complex rapier hilt. It would seem that a number of influences from Italian edged weapons exist in the weapons and uses in India, as well of course as from many colonial powers via trade.

If the finger was not positioned in this manner, why would the tulwar blades consistantly display this ricasso feature?

Also, still wondering more on the use of trade blades on auspiciously qualified swords.

As always, lots more research to be done!!

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Ahah! Just found this item of interest in the files, from:
"A Late 15th Century Italian Sword" by Anthony North ("The Connoisseur, Dec. 1975, p.239):
Discussing Moroccan swords described in "Les Poignards et les Sabres Marocains" ( Hesperis, Tome XXVI, 1939, p.1), by Charles Buttin, Mr. North notes that "...the placing of the index finger around the base of the blade when holding the sword was a technique shown on a number of Spanish and Italian paintings. A striking feature of the sword which forms the subject of this article is the comparitively short grip. It can only be held satisfactorily if the grip is held by three fingers and a thumb, the last three fingers fitting into the recesses provided, the thumb supporting the top of the grip, and the forefinger placed around the base of the blade, a section being cut away from the edge to allow for this, hence the need for the ring guard to prevent the opponents blade injuring the exposed finger. The advantage of using the sword this way is that the point can be used as well as the edge".

I think this reference is interesting because as previously noted there were considerable contacts between these spheres via trade, particularly with the Portuguese as well as with Venice. Since the European weapons clearly had such impact on Indian weaponry , it would seem that fencing techniques would have been equally observed. Since the tulwar is used as mentioned primarily as a slashing weapon and parries were the business of the shield, the quillons on the tulwar are essentially vestigial. Therefore, it would seem that a gauntleted finger wrapped around the quillon would be quite likely.
The sword described in the North article is actually an Italian sabre that appears essentially identical in many ways, especially the hilt structure, to the nimcha of Morocco.

Possibly this information may be useful in further consideration on the hilt size of these Indian swords. It would be interesting also to consider whether the khanda with developed 'basket hilt' had equally small grips or hilt size, as this hilt typically carried straight European trade blades and its use was obviously entirely different than that employed with the tulwar. The example I have I can hold quite comfortably.

Best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Jim,
As you know from earlier mails I have written on the forum, I believe more in the 'eight grain, finger width' theory. As to the ricasso, I think it is still to be figured out, why some blades have one and why some don’t. There are also the miniatures to be taken in consideration, as they mostly shows many details.

Best regards

Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
I agree the measurement value data seems to apply very well to some of the observations and it is good to have established that material for future reference in researching these swords.The question on the virtually characteristic 'ricasso' feature on tulwars certainly remains inconclusive and debated.
Best regards,
Jim

The issue concerning 'small hands' and the size of the grips on many tulwar hilts is discussed by E.Jaiwent Paul in "By My Sword and Shield" (p.76) where he notes that physical size of individuals in earlier times was indeed typically smaller. However, he also offers the following observation, "...many swordsmiths say that a small hilt which is a tight fit for the hand gives rise to a sense of 'josh', a term difficult to render in English, but which may be translated as a combination of aggression, fervour and recklessness".
I'm not sure I agree with this idea, but it seems worthy of note and I cant help but think this concept may align with that of 'one wearing ones shorts too tight'!

Returning to the 'ricasso' dilemma, I think the basic reference on this stems from "The Indian Sword" by Rawson, which observes;
"...there is one obvious point of difference between Persian and Indian blades which may be mentioned. No Persian blade is known to have a feature which may be called the Indian Ricasso. This is a short flattened section at the root of the edge, which is shouldered into the bevel of the edge. The reason for its existence may have been to safeguard the index finger, which art shows to have been sometimes hooked round the front quillon of the hilt in India".
(the footnote cites a personal communication from a B.W.Robinson of the metalwork dept. at the Victoria & Albert Museum as the source for this data).
It is interesting to note that Rawson specifically states that 'art' does show this practice being used, unfortunately no reference is given as to what 'art' is being cited.

This material from Rawson seems to have firmly placed this explanation for this virtually consistant feature of Indian tulwar blades in the lore of Indian arms. In the later work of G.N. Pant, "Indian Arms & Armour" , Dr.Pant does take exception to a number of statements and material in the work of both Rawson and the seminal work by Egerton, but surprisingly seems to concur with Rawsons notes on the 'ricasso'. Pant observes that the [Indian] ricasso is "...a square shaped space, generally of 2" is left blunt and unsharpened just below the tang, and is called ricasso (locally 'khajana'). This saves the fingers from being cut as some of them slip out of the quillons at the time of wielding. This feature is not found on the shamshirs but is invariably found on the tulwars". (p.31).
Here, once again, no specific reference is given to support these observations.

It would appear that Rawson was confident in the data concerning the hooked finger on the blade that he received from Mr. Robinson. As earlier posted, the article by Anthony North, also formerly of the Victoria & Albert, made note of the finger hooking practice in Italian and Spanish swordsmanship. Perhaps that established practice, noted as represented in European artwork, was recalled in evaluating the Indian swords...but Rawsons note as worded suggests the practice shown is in Indian artwork...but which...where?

It is noted in the North/Buttin material that with the finger hooking practice used in Italy and Spain, it was important to have finger guards to protect the finger. The drooping quillon is seen on many sword forms in these swords to provide such protection. I think here it is important to note the 'palouar', the Afghan version of the tulwar, which has such drooping quillons presumably to that end......and carries a pronounced ricasso.

Although I agree the idea of placing the index finger precariously outside the protection of the guard seems an inherently bad idea, it seems important to present the observations of established authorities on these swords and thier use, without really issuing conclusive statements. This material is presented simply as evidence that may be helpful in further discussion.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Jim,

As I don’t know much about the ricasso, and especially not why it was used, I would prefer to wait discussing it till I know more. There are several possibilities, some more likely than others, but it will have to wait.

Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
I must also concede to having little 'working' knowledge of the ricasso, and rely more on the observations of those who study the martial aspects of these weapons for that perspective. The material I have discovered and referenced from various sources concerning published reference to both the ricasso and practice of placement of finger around the quillon is simply noted to present established data on the topic. It seems very clear that no conclusions can possibly be drawn on most of this data and those who review it can use it to establish thier own observations. I always hope that someone reading this material might have material that would either support or rebut that which I have cited.

In further thinking on the tulwar it seems important to note characteristics of certain types. The quillons on the tulwar actually seem vestigial and poorly suited for guarding, which agrees with the idea that sword to sword combat with these seemed unlikely. This brings about the forms which have the knucklebow added, a feature which would suggest such sword to sword combat. Were these types mounted with ricassoed blades as well?

I keep coming back to the very presence of the ricasso, if not for the safety of a forefinger, then why was it there? Its presence is pronounced on the Afghan paluoar, which actually does have the drooping quillons that would protect the finger.

Although it seems we have deviated from the original course of this thread somewhat, we actually are still considering the hilt sizes as measured, and the feasibility of looping forefinger outside the area of the crossguard/quillons accounting for the smaller size on some hilts. The mysterious Indian ricasso and its purpose seem very pertinant here and hopefully we can at least review the collective data on it....long way to go yet

All the best,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

In Babur-Nama I found this.
(Authors note on the kuroh) [must be the translators notes].
These kurohs were established in relation to the mil, in the way mentioned in the Mubin:
(Turki) Four thousand paces (qadam) are one mil;
know that Hind People call this a kuroh;
the pace (qadam) they say is a qari and a half (36in.);
know that each qari (24in.) is six hands-breadths (tutam)
that each tutam is four fingers (ailik),
each ailik 6 barley-corns.
The measuring-cord (tanab) was fixed at 40 qari, each being the one-and-a-half qari mentioned above, that is to say, each is 9 hand-breadths. (The tanab was thus 120ft. long).

Now, if you take ‘The Wonder that was India’, and have a look at page 503, you will see, like Jim correctly wrote earlier, that 8 yava (barley-corns) = 1 angula (fingers breadth, ¾ in.).

Now the interesting thing comes.
In B-N they say that a qari is 24 in. or six hand-breadths = one hand breadth = 4 in. As a hand-breadth is defined as being 4 fingers, 1 finger would be 1 inch.
In ‘The Wonder that was India’ the author says 1 angula is ¾ in, this gives 3 in. to four fingers, and that is what my tulwar hilts measure – 3 in.

Mil/kuroh = 4000 paces = 144.000 inches = 12.000 feet = 4000 yards
Qari = six hand-breaths (1 hand = 1 tutam) = 24 inches
Tutam = 4 fingers (ailik) = 4 inches
1 ailik = 6 barley-corns = 1 inch
1 barley-corn = 0.167 inches

In the B-N 6 barley-corns are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = 1”.

In The wonder.. 8 yava (barley-corns) are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = ¾”.

It is strange that they used a different number of barley-corns, and it is even more strange that 6 corns equals 1”, and 8 corns equal ¾”.

We know that a good blade should be so an so many ailiks/angulas – this was important, and it is also known that the Hindus used the blade length when they wanted a horoscope made. We know that Babur had towers build along the roads at certain intervals, like our milestones in the old days. This is odd, as the length of the blades, the width of the hilts, building of houses, distances on the road – it should all be measures by the same measure. Can anyone explain this?