Tulwar silver decoration style

ariel · 14th September 2006, 06:31 PM

Jens,
You are absolutely right: the handle/blade question is somewhat akin to the chicken/egg dilemma.
Where it is important, I think, is in the attribution of the locality to a weapon.
Your own avatar shows a Khandjarli: a very, very Indian dagger.
But change the handle, and it will become a Kurdish Jambiya, a Marsh Arab Jambiya, a Persian one and so on.
We identify Piso Podangs by the handle, no matter what kind of blade is attached to it.
Under no circumstance do I intend to downgrade the role of a blade (that would be plain silly), but I more and more agree with the Polish point of view that it is the handle that defines the national origin of the sword. Handles are based on local decorating traditions, whereas a lot of blades were trade blades. They were brought in and fitted by local masters into locally-produced ( often individually-ordered) handles modeled according to local esthetic customs. So, for me the crux of the issue is not whether we call a particular sword shamshir or tulwar; it is where do we think this particular sword came from. Having decided that, we can assign to it its proper local name.

Tim Simmons · 14th September 2006, 06:53 PM

I would agree with ariel, as a collector I see it this way. No one wants a nasty, ugly, damaged or wildly unsuitable blade for its intended purpose be it fighting or parade. But to me the blade is often the minor part of the whole picture. As mentioned the handle helping identifying the location and possible people that may have used the blade, the scabbard even more so. To me a fine sword without a scabbard is less than a simple piece that can tell the whole story.

spiral · 14th September 2006, 10:04 PM

mmmm lots of intresting points to ponder, & I agree blades are damaged doing what they were made to do. {& by rust etc.} But many non tulwar metal handles are also destroyed by time & enviroment. wood, horn bone & ivory check,split, warp, decay or are eaten by worms & beetles & then need to be replaced. Stone & crystal crack or shatter when dropped.

Ive only had 6 or 7 tulwar & only 2 of those had damaged handles.

But for me the blade is the heart of it, that is what makes it a weapon. Perhaps I should collect ninhonto?

I do love a good & complimentry handle though.

The handle on its own even when fantasticaly artistic & well made is still just a handle, although as some of you say its very true that the handle style can be a great identifyer to origin.

But I think realy both blade & handle always need to be appraised & described, not just one piece or another.

To do anything else would only be half the picture, I thik?

I like the Gestalt approach myself in appraisel. {& indeed in most things.}

Spiral

14th September 2006, 06:31 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jens, You are absolutely right: the handle/blade question is somewhat akin to the chicken/egg dilemma. Where it is important, I think, is in the attribution of the locality to a weapon. Your own avatar shows a Khandjarli: a very, very Indian dagger. But change the handle, and it will become a Kurdish Jambiya, a Marsh Arab Jambiya, a Persian one and so on. We identify Piso Podangs by the handle, no matter what kind of blade is attached to it. Under no circumstance do I intend to downgrade the role of a blade (that would be plain silly), but I more and more agree with the Polish point of view that it is the handle that defines the national origin of the sword. Handles are based on local decorating traditions, whereas a lot of blades were trade blades. They were brought in and fitted by local masters into locally-produced ( often individually-ordered) handles modeled according to local esthetic customs. So, for me the crux of the issue is not whether we call a particular sword shamshir or tulwar; it is where do we think this particular sword came from. Having decided that, we can assign to it its proper local name.

14th September 2006, 06:53 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,842	I would agree with ariel, as a collector I see it this way. No one wants a nasty, ugly, damaged or wildly unsuitable blade for its intended purpose be it fighting or parade. But to me the blade is often the minor part of the whole picture. As mentioned the handle helping identifying the location and possible people that may have used the blade, the scabbard even more so. To me a fine sword without a scabbard is less than a simple piece that can tell the whole story.

14th September 2006, 10:04 PM	#3
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	mmmm lots of intresting points to ponder, & I agree blades are damaged doing what they were made to do. {& by rust etc.} But many non tulwar metal handles are also destroyed by time & enviroment. wood, horn bone & ivory check,split, warp, decay or are eaten by worms & beetles & then need to be replaced. Stone & crystal crack or shatter when dropped. Ive only had 6 or 7 tulwar & only 2 of those had damaged handles. But for me the blade is the heart of it, that is what makes it a weapon. Perhaps I should collect ninhonto? I do love a good & complimentry handle though. The handle on its own even when fantasticaly artistic & well made is still just a handle, although as some of you say its very true that the handle style can be a great identifyer to origin. But I think realy both blade & handle always need to be appraised & described, not just one piece or another. To do anything else would only be half the picture, I thik? I like the Gestalt approach myself in appraisel. {& indeed in most things.} Spiral