Indian short sabers

[ariel]

Here are pics of 3 short Indian sabers of mine.
The upper one is a standard tulwar with blade length of 29.5 inches ( straight line)

After that, top to bottom there are: 27, 25, 26 inches.

The upper 2 of them can be characterized as teghas: blade width 1 1/2 inch for both vs. 1 1/8 for the standard tulwar.

The lowest one has reinforced tip: definitely designed for stabbing.

All have non-standard handles ( well, the lowest one is a typical tulwar, but 100% intact. That counts for a "nonstandard" these days and age:-)


My attribution:
The upper one ( with the pulwar handle) is likely Afghani, although I would not exclude Central India

The next one : Deccan. It is mechanical damascus.

The lowest one....Afghani? Judging by the fullers?

All 3 look like infantry swords: they would not be good for slashing from the horse back.

Please help me attribute, date and otherwise define them.
Thanks.

[ariel]

#2

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Ariel,

You write about three swords, but you show four - please explain!

The hilt shown in post two looks a lot like the hilts shown in the thread started by Emanuel - is it quite the same decoration?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11025

Jens

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Ariel,

You write about three swords, but you show four - please explain!

The hilt shown in post two looks a lot like the hilts shown in the thread started by Emanuel - is it quite the same decoration?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11025

Jens

Hi Jens, as I understand Ariel's post the top sword in his initial image is a standard sized tulwar intended to give scale to the next three.

The questions Ariel poses are regarding the next three swords (2-4 in his image).

[ariel]

Iain,
Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, the uppermost sword is just an example of a standard tulwar, just to give an idea what do I mean talking about "short" sabers ( ##2-4)
My "bad" :-((

[Iain]

Originally Posted by ariel

Iain,
Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, the uppermost sword is just an example of a standard tulwar, just to give an idea what do I mean talking about "short" sabers ( ##2-4)
My "bad" :-((

I know the formatting of how the forum displays images can be tricky, but the image of the script on one blade corresponds to sword #2 with the pulwar hilt? Looks like a stamp hiding near the pulwar hilt as well? Or have you IDed that stamp already?

[ariel]

Yes, the inscription belongs to the pulwar. And yes, there is a very small fragment of the stamp, literally a sliver of an arcSplinter of a letter, nothing else.

[ariel]

Re. similarity between the example by Emanuel and mine ( #4, or the lowermost).
There was a suggestion, that the Emanuel's was decorated with Bidri. Don't know about his, but have doubts re. mine.

AFAIK, the objects to be decorated by Bidri are made of copper-zink alloy, then inlayed with silver and then their copper-zink background is blackened by a secret recipe. Thus, they are non-magnetic. I tested mine: strongly magnetic, i.e. iron , NOT copper-zink.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel and Iain,
I should have read the text instead of asking a silly question - sorry.

Ariel, I dont think the first sword you show being about 73.75 cm all in all is 'standard' length. If I remember correctly the 'recommended' length is closer to 90 cm, so the other swords really are quite a bit shorter.
Youi are right that there must be a reason for this, and I dont think the reason is - 'we ran out of iron/steel'.
One possibility could be that they were made for young men, but there are other possibilities. When a certain length of a sword could mean life and death to the user, there must be a specific reason why your are shorter.
I will not start guessing at the moment, but only say that your quess on the Deccani one may be wrong.
Jens

[ariel]

Jens,
I measured only blades: straight line from the tip to the quillon block.
I also remeasured several other tulwars , Moroccan nimchas, turkish Shamshirs etc. All of them have blades between 75 and 82 cm.
I could hit the "90 cm" number only when I included the handles .

Size of a cavalry sword was derived from the length of the blade needed for a horse rider to slash at the enemy lying on the ground.

This is why I think the "short" ones were for the infantry. I could bring an argument of very short navy swords, but having "Afghanistan" and "navy" in the same sentence did not sound kosher:-) I hesitate to attribute them to the " youngsters brigade": ## 2 and 4 are very heavy.

What, IMHO, is interesting , is the massive reinforced tip on #4: we were told repeatedly that Indians used only slashing technique, and were not even acquainted with stabbing, and that's why many tulwars have rounded tips etc. What are we to do with this one? :-))

My "Deccani" attribution of #3 was based on the configuration of the handle. I do have my doubts about the blade: it looks kinda like S. Arabian nimcha. Cannot exclude the possibility of a later remounting.

Where did I go wrong with a tilt toward Deccan?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel,
Your arguments about the length of the blades could be right, but I dont know.
The reinforced tip on no 4 is strange, but I have seen it before. Maybe they belonged to Sepoys trained by English officers. In that case they would have learned the stabbing technique, but I am guessing.
You did not go wrong saying that the hilt was from Deccan, but these hilt types were also used in Afghanistan.
Jens

[Pukka Bundook]

Very nice examples all.

Somewhere in the dim and dusty, I recall shorter swords being carried whilst hunting. I can't place any references though, and these blades look designed for serious work.
Also I recall in a vague way, swords of differing length being carried by individuals. Again, can't at present think of any reference.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Ariel,

You did not go wrong saying that the hilt was from Deccan, but these hilt types were also used in Afghanistan.
Jens

Perhaps, we are talking about different swords and the confusion is entirely my fault.

The first "short sword" has a "pulwar" handle: Afghanistan is my first choice, Deccan distant second.

But I am confused about the second "short" one" I cannot recall such handle on Afghani swords. Deccan or even more south-ward is my assumption. Do you agree?

The 3rd "short" one has a typical ubiquitous Mughal handle, but the fullers on the blade make me think Afghanistan.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Very nice examples all.

Somewhere in the dim and dusty, I recall shorter swords being carried whilst hunting. I can't place any references though, and these blades look designed for serious work.
Also I recall in a vague way, swords of differing length being carried by individuals. Again, can't at present think of any reference.

Thanks! I also like them :-)))))


My recollection that Indian hunting swords were just garden variety tulwars, only with hunting scenes incised or etched on the blade. There are quite a lot of old Mughal miniatures with hunting scenes: all hunters are on the horseback and carry " tulwar shikargar". Never saw a short sword in that context. If you manage to extract your info from the " dim and dusty" :-), please let me know, I will be very grateful.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Richard,

You could be right - I dont know, as I have never tried to research this before, but I have been wondering too.

In Hindu Arms and Ritual Robert quotes The Nujum al-Ulum (1579 AD) where it says that a suprious sword is fifty fingers long. In the note he says that they in South-Asia uses the thumb when measuring - krises blades, but he does not say anything what was used when measuring sword blades in India.
I dont know if this measure should be used here, as in another discussion we had on the forum long ago, one fingers width is the same as four or five barly corns - and this would not fit with a thumbs width - or the corns would have be quite big. I seem to remember that they in India used the index finger, and this would fit better to four or five barly corns.
So when fifty finger should be the length of a sword, and the number of finger should be even rather than uneven. I dont know why they made the blade of such a different length.
Other than they thought that such 'profets' should not decide of which length their sword should be, but dont for´get that they were very superstisious at the time.

Jens

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sorry I made a mistake when I said one angula/finger was four or five barley corns, as it seems to be eight barley corns.
Wheeler M. Thackston in Jahangirnama writes that one finger is 2.032 cm or 4/5 inch.
A. L. Basham in The Wonder that was India writes that eight barley corns = one angula = 3/4 inch.
If Thackston is correct. 1 inch = 2.54 cm so 4/5 of an inch would be 2.032 cm.
Basham's measure would give 1.905 cm. So the difference would be 0.127 cm.
When we are told that the best blades should be 50 angulas - and always an even number - the difference in blade length would be 6.35 cm, which is 3.125 angulas in difference.