Tulwar with pronounced Yelman.

Norman McCormick · 25th June 2012, 11:16 PM

Hi Christek,
Thanks for your interest, it is certainly long enough to be used from horseback although whether primarily designed for this purpose I'm not sure.
My Regards,
Norman.

Norman McCormick · 25th June 2012, 11:23 PM

Hi Gene,
Thanks for your kind comments. It certainly looks like differential hardening, there is a scarf weld halfway up the blade and the activity in the blade is much easier to see in real life so things are looking pretty good. I too love the shape and it feels good so am desperate to have a go on a watermelon but I won't. The etching will have to wait, I'm in an apartment now, will ask my friend if I can use his garage. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Don't think it is right for a Tegha, but will wait on the 'expert India wallah's' for an opinion.

Jim McDougall · 25th June 2012, 11:58 PM

Norman, not only is this a superb example tulwar, but this triad of them is to me a quintessant grouping of excellent fighting tulwars! You have also presented them perfectly showing good hilt views as well as lower half blade views, and best of all included a view of the pommel dish top. While typically through the years tulwars have been observed wholly and usually without any note of these pommel dish features. It was Jens some years ago who noted this apparant oversight, and saw the interesting and possibly important variation in the features and motif in these, and began cataloguing the pommel caps along with other views.

While there are really no definitive classifications for tulwar hilts that may be categorically applied, there are some reasonably reliable guidelines which can establish some degree of identifying description. These are best used with careful consideration of various features, decoration and comparison with other provenanced and catalogued examples. I have spent a little time going through notes and some references very much inspired by these three outstanding sabres.

The first on the left, is what I would consider from northwestern regions from Sindh, Baluchistan, Punjab and notable is the fixture at the center of the chowk of the guard which seems typically found on tulwars which have had similar features to Afghan paluoars. The flueret (palmette) quillon terminals are often regarded as Mughal or Deccani features, but they seem as well to be found on some tulwars regarded as Talpuri (from Sindh).

The second and center tulwar is of the type typically regarded from Pant's classification as Udaipuri (Rajasthan) and often the thin wheeled quillon terminals have been stated 19th century. It should be noted that while many of these may be 19th century, they are simply more modern versions of the form which existed in the 18th century, possibly earlier.

Your newly acquired example with knuckleguard seems clearly Mughal and corresponds to hilt forms of the latter 17th century. The domed quillon guards are considered Ottoman affectations, as would be the stylized dragon or makara head.
While the Mughals were highly influenced by Persia, there were strong infusions of Ottoman culture as well in the 17th century.

The blade on this tulwar has the pronounced yelman of Ottoman influence and again corresponds to similar blades of the 17th century, with these used into the 18th. The other two examples have much more subtly integrated yelmans in the widened tip very much like other Central Asian shamshirs of the 17th century.

The unwritten axiom is that the heavier blades tend to be earlier, and I would say all three of these reflect earlier dates from latter 17th into 18th, with the newer acquisition earliest of the three. The other two more toward end of the 18th in my opinion.

I think the 'tegha' term is less than useful and so vaguely described in most sources it's actual application is questionable. Most of the swords I have seen with the term used have been excessively broad bladed and often regarded as 'executioner' swords. These however are likely in most cases of ceremonial or bearing type use.

Atlantia · 26th June 2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think the 'tegha' term is less than useful and so vaguely described in most sources it's actual application is questionable. Most of the swords I have seen with the term used have been excessively broad bladed and often regarded as 'executioner' swords. These however are likely in most cases of ceremonial or bearing type use.

Hey Jim,

There seems to be a trend among some collectors of these swords at the moment toward (finally) tackling the division of swords we have always simply called 'Tulwar' into more specific sub-categories.
The reason I posed the question of 'shall we call it a tegha?' is that I have noticed recently he term being more favoured in some circles for broad heavy curved Tulwar, not just the exaggerated examples that we are all used to.
As such, I actually find it rather useful to have as a distinct sub-category and as such I would think that Normans fine heavy curved sword is broad enough to be described as a 'Tegha Tulwar'.
I should add that I don't know the origin or if there is an accepted line where a broad curved blade becomes 'tegha' but there it is.

Besides, anyone who was alive in the UK in the 70s will know that the primary use for those 'giant' Tegha is actually for cutting your Fry's Turkish Delight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAY_o36paQ0

Atlantia · 27th June 2012, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Gene,
Thanks for your kind comments. It certainly looks like differential hardening, there is a scarf weld halfway up the blade and the activity in the blade is much easier to see in real life so things are looking pretty good. I too love the shape and it feels good so am desperate to have a go on a watermelon but I won't. The etching will have to wait, I'm in an apartment now, will ask my friend if I can use his garage. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Don't think it is right for a Tegha, but will wait on the 'expert India wallah's' for an opinion.

Hi Norman,

It's a beauty, I'd love it myself!
I'd have guessed a date of about 1780 (ish). As has been said already, it has the look of a good 'fighting mans' sword.

Tegha! Hmm, I think it will depend who you ask TBH. A few years ago, I doubt anyone would have even pondered if it should be called a Tegha as the term seemed reserved for those giant ceremonial things.
As I said to Jim, I find it a useful term but will have to leave it for others to decide the validity.

I'll be interested to hear what the specialist collectors of this stuff say and see if there is a cultural divide in terminology.

As I said above, I'd call it a 'Tegha Tulwar' to indicate a broad heavy curved blade somewhat wider than is usual for a Tulwar but on the narrower/straighter range for a Tegha.
I'll have a dig and see if I can illustrate.

Best
Gene

Atlantia · 27th June 2012, 12:10 AM

Some interesting similar swords>
All sold so not current sale items.

http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-p...er-sword-es194

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2852

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=2763

Norman McCormick · 27th June 2012, 08:32 PM

Hi Gene/Jim,
All the swords illustrated here are sold items gleaned from the www.Oriental-Arms.com site. All have the word Tegha in their description and only one is described as over 2 inches wide and in this case I suspect not by much. Blade lengths vary from 25 inches up to 35 inches. I would not normally or necessarily have associated these blades with the term Tegha but my knowledge is limited. As has been noted the Tulwar that is the subject of this post is most certainly a fighting sword extremely sharp and showing signs of use where one would expect and not the bearing/ceremonial/execution? item that I would normally associate with the description of Tegha. I look forward to further input with interest.
My regards to you both,
Norman.

P.S. The three swords with the D-guards have the longer blades 29-35 inches with only one of the others similar at 30 inches, I'm not aware whether this has any significance or not.

Atlantia · 27th June 2012, 09:26 PM

I think we've illustrated the difficulty in assertaining where a tulwar becomes a Tegha quite nicely.
I'm getting a deja vu now.... either a glitch in the matrix or I've had this debate before.

So if a tegha is a broad curved sword and a tulwar is also a curved sword... both with the same hilt, both single edged...
Where is the line where a Tulwar can be described as Tegha?

I've already got my ideas, so I'll let others chime in before I throw them out there

But I will say that I've often wondered if Tegha aren't properly these and the term wasn't misapropriated for those exaggerated swords we now associate it with.

Best
Gene

Jim McDougall · 27th June 2012, 11:45 PM

LOL!Gene, No doubt a fry cook wielding one of these monsters would be pretty scary

Elgood in "Hindu Arms & Ritual" addresses the 'tegha' conundrum by noting that the Persian word 'tegh' (Steingass, 1973) =sword, glaive,falchion, knife razor, but in India the word tegha is used for the blade of a sword or knife. He notes further that Rawson (1968) brought the heavy, curved blade of 17th century swords into this, and emphasizes that the tegha term has nothing to do with 'headsmans swords'. (p.265).

Turning to Rawson (1968, pp.6,18,19) he describes the tegha as a broad blade with backward curve. He then notes that strictly speaking tegha is a word in Arabic for blade, but 'following Egerton' it is used to describe a tulwar blade with 'exceptionally deep backward curve'.
He notes there are two types of tegha, one Muslim, the other Hindu. In these descriptions they are both again deep backward curve with no mention of heaviness in the blade. The key differences however are in the hilt one with tulwar form the other with Hindu basket hilt.

Here's where it gets complicated....going another step back to Egerton, the original source (1880, p.117). Tegha is described as short broad heavy blade with two grooves (#536 from Codrington collection 30" blade 2" wide).
He then (p.123) describes a sword (nimcha, tegha,goliah) with the handle with tiger stripes from Seringpatam as from Hindustan c.1780 and is a small sword with slight curve.
Completely contrary to the tegha descriptions and the nimcha is even more puzzling.

We go to 'goliah' (p.123) a heavy sword 'slightly bent' and worn by men of rank.

on p.105 the tegha is described as broad curved sword used by Hindu Rangars and 'Mohammedan Rajputs'.

It seems like the string of misinterpretation evolved through the early writers into the work of Rawson, with Pant and later Elgood trying to address the conundrum as well as possible. As can be seen here, the tegha is regarded as a word which has been apparantly misconstrued by early writers attempting to classify sword types with entirely conflicting results.

I'm glad you noted that the use of the term had become a trend among some collectors, interestingly this phenomenon is exactly where we get the phrase 'collectors term' for many of the misnomers often still with us. It seems that it is popular to assign catchy terms or descriptive terms to some sword types with particular features to rather elevate thier attraction, most often in sales descriptions and catalogs. These are of course less than productive in cases like this where identification of sword forms is quite difficult as it is.

Naturally I would also welcome the input and opinions of the specialists, but these are the observations from my own point of view after reviewing the standard references.

All the best,
Jim

25th June 2012, 11:23 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi Gene, Thanks for your kind comments. It certainly looks like differential hardening, there is a scarf weld halfway up the blade and the activity in the blade is much easier to see in real life so things are looking pretty good. I too love the shape and it feels good so am desperate to have a go on a watermelon but I won't. The etching will have to wait, I'm in an apartment now, will ask my friend if I can use his garage. Thanks again. My Regards, Norman. P.S. Don't think it is right for a Tegha, but will wait on the 'expert India wallah's' for an opinion. Last edited by Norman McCormick; 25th June 2012 at 11:44 PM.

25th June 2012, 11:58 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	Norman, not only is this a superb example tulwar, but this triad of them is to me a quintessant grouping of excellent fighting tulwars! You have also presented them perfectly showing good hilt views as well as lower half blade views, and best of all included a view of the pommel dish top. While typically through the years tulwars have been observed wholly and usually without any note of these pommel dish features. It was Jens some years ago who noted this apparant oversight, and saw the interesting and possibly important variation in the features and motif in these, and began cataloguing the pommel caps along with other views. While there are really no definitive classifications for tulwar hilts that may be categorically applied, there are some reasonably reliable guidelines which can establish some degree of identifying description. These are best used with careful consideration of various features, decoration and comparison with other provenanced and catalogued examples. I have spent a little time going through notes and some references very much inspired by these three outstanding sabres. The first on the left, is what I would consider from northwestern regions from Sindh, Baluchistan, Punjab and notable is the fixture at the center of the chowk of the guard which seems typically found on tulwars which have had similar features to Afghan paluoars. The flueret (palmette) quillon terminals are often regarded as Mughal or Deccani features, but they seem as well to be found on some tulwars regarded as Talpuri (from Sindh). The second and center tulwar is of the type typically regarded from Pant's classification as Udaipuri (Rajasthan) and often the thin wheeled quillon terminals have been stated 19th century. It should be noted that while many of these may be 19th century, they are simply more modern versions of the form which existed in the 18th century, possibly earlier. Your newly acquired example with knuckleguard seems clearly Mughal and corresponds to hilt forms of the latter 17th century. The domed quillon guards are considered Ottoman affectations, as would be the stylized dragon or makara head. While the Mughals were highly influenced by Persia, there were strong infusions of Ottoman culture as well in the 17th century. The blade on this tulwar has the pronounced yelman of Ottoman influence and again corresponds to similar blades of the 17th century, with these used into the 18th. The other two examples have much more subtly integrated yelmans in the widened tip very much like other Central Asian shamshirs of the 17th century. The unwritten axiom is that the heavier blades tend to be earlier, and I would say all three of these reflect earlier dates from latter 17th into 18th, with the newer acquisition earliest of the three. The other two more toward end of the 18th in my opinion. I think the 'tegha' term is less than useful and so vaguely described in most sources it's actual application is questionable. Most of the swords I have seen with the term used have been excessively broad bladed and often regarded as 'executioner' swords. These however are likely in most cases of ceremonial or bearing type use. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 26th June 2012 at 02:18 AM.

27th June 2012, 12:10 AM	#6
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Some interesting similar swords> All sold so not current sale items. http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-p...er-sword-es194 http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2852 http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=2763 Last edited by Atlantia; 27th June 2012 at 11:28 AM.

27th June 2012, 08:32 PM	#7
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi Gene/Jim, All the swords illustrated here are sold items gleaned from the www.Oriental-Arms.com site. All have the word Tegha in their description and only one is described as over 2 inches wide and in this case I suspect not by much. Blade lengths vary from 25 inches up to 35 inches. I would not normally or necessarily have associated these blades with the term Tegha but my knowledge is limited. As has been noted the Tulwar that is the subject of this post is most certainly a fighting sword extremely sharp and showing signs of use where one would expect and not the bearing/ceremonial/execution? item that I would normally associate with the description of Tegha. I look forward to further input with interest. My regards to you both, Norman. P.S. The three swords with the D-guards have the longer blades 29-35 inches with only one of the others similar at 30 inches, I'm not aware whether this has any significance or not. Attached Images Last edited by Norman McCormick; 27th June 2012 at 09:00 PM.

25th June 2012, 11:16 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi Christek, Thanks for your interest, it is certainly long enough to be used from horseback although whether primarily designed for this purpose I'm not sure. My Regards, Norman.

27th June 2012, 09:26 PM	#8
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	I think we've illustrated the difficulty in assertaining where a tulwar becomes a Tegha quite nicely. I'm getting a deja vu now.... either a glitch in the matrix or I've had this debate before. So if a tegha is a broad curved sword and a tulwar is also a curved sword... both with the same hilt, both single edged... Where is the line where a Tulwar can be described as Tegha? I've already got my ideas, so I'll let others chime in before I throw them out there But I will say that I've often wondered if Tegha aren't properly these and the term wasn't misapropriated for those exaggerated swords we now associate it with. Best Gene

27th June 2012, 11:45 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	LOL!Gene, No doubt a fry cook wielding one of these monsters would be pretty scary Elgood in "Hindu Arms & Ritual" addresses the 'tegha' conundrum by noting that the Persian word 'tegh' (Steingass, 1973) =sword, glaive,falchion, knife razor, but in India the word tegha is used for the blade of a sword or knife. He notes further that Rawson (1968) brought the heavy, curved blade of 17th century swords into this, and emphasizes that the tegha term has nothing to do with 'headsmans swords'. (p.265). Turning to Rawson (1968, pp.6,18,19) he describes the tegha as a broad blade with backward curve. He then notes that strictly speaking tegha is a word in Arabic for blade, but 'following Egerton' it is used to describe a tulwar blade with 'exceptionally deep backward curve'. He notes there are two types of tegha, one Muslim, the other Hindu. In these descriptions they are both again deep backward curve with no mention of heaviness in the blade. The key differences however are in the hilt one with tulwar form the other with Hindu basket hilt. Here's where it gets complicated....going another step back to Egerton, the original source (1880, p.117). Tegha is described as short broad heavy blade with two grooves (#536 from Codrington collection 30" blade 2" wide). He then (p.123) describes a sword (nimcha, tegha,goliah) with the handle with tiger stripes from Seringpatam as from Hindustan c.1780 and is a small sword with slight curve. Completely contrary to the tegha descriptions and the nimcha is even more puzzling. We go to 'goliah' (p.123) a heavy sword 'slightly bent' and worn by men of rank. on p.105 the tegha is described as broad curved sword used by Hindu Rangars and 'Mohammedan Rajputs'. It seems like the string of misinterpretation evolved through the early writers into the work of Rawson, with Pant and later Elgood trying to address the conundrum as well as possible. As can be seen here, the tegha is regarded as a word which has been apparantly misconstrued by early writers attempting to classify sword types with entirely conflicting results. I'm glad you noted that the use of the term had become a trend among some collectors, interestingly this phenomenon is exactly where we get the phrase 'collectors term' for many of the misnomers often still with us. It seems that it is popular to assign catchy terms or descriptive terms to some sword types with particular features to rather elevate thier attraction, most often in sales descriptions and catalogs. These are of course less than productive in cases like this where identification of sword forms is quite difficult as it is. Naturally I would also welcome the input and opinions of the specialists, but these are the observations from my own point of view after reviewing the standard references. All the best, Jim