Tulwar scabbard

Pukka Bundook · 17th March 2007, 04:22 AM

Jens,
If I turn the fitting upside down and turn it, the decorative side won't be where the 'imprint' is. I can see we might bog down on this one, as it is hard to describe what I mean!
Below are added some pictures.

The first picture shows the middle fitting with the decorative side facing us.
The "imprint" on the wood, shows that the decorative side was always On this side. As can be seen, this would appear to make the scabbard left-handed.

#2, shows decoration and imprint aligned, but this means that the ring is on the cutting side of blade.

#3, shows that with the ring in the usual position, (on the inside of the curve) the decoration does not line up quite with the 'imprint.

#4, shows the 'imprint on this side of the scabbard.

#5 shows the mount removed from decoration, it appears to have never been apart before, but notice, the ring is on the narrower side of the mount, as though it was indeed made to fit on the 'outsid' of the curve, ie, ring nearest the cutting edge.

This struck me as a bit interesting, but if no-one has seen one mounted in this manner, I'll just mount it in the conventional way.

Sorry this sounds a bit confusing!!

Richard.

Jens Nordlunde · 17th March 2007, 11:28 AM

Richard,

It all looks very strange, and it seems as if the ring has been placed on the outer curve, which, to my oppinion, would be most unusual. I think I would place the rings of the old and new fittings on the inner curve – maybe the user was very excentric

. Btw the upper fitting, could very well have looked like the mid part of the fitting you show in detail.

Nice pictures.

Jens

Pukka Bundook · 17th March 2007, 02:41 PM

Jens,

Yes, I think I'd better make this scabbard in the normal manner, even if this one Was made the other way around.
............Otherwise, everyone who saw it would be telling me, "You made it wrong!!"....(Even if "right" is "wrong" in this case!)

I am looking forward to making the upper fitting, and agree that this would most likely be the same as the mid section of the middle fitting, maybe with some decoration only on the lower end.

Do you have any idea how these iron mounts were finished, originally?

Was wondering if they would be browned, blued, painted, or left bright.

Also, a very thin Red foil was placed inside the pierced fittings, to show through. This foil has oxidized in part, and the colour has come off in places, leaving it transparent.
Do you have any idea what this may have been? (The foil was gold on the inside, and red on the showing side)

Please pardon all the questions!
I find all this very interesting!!

Jim McDougall · 17th March 2007, 06:02 PM

Hi Richard,
Actually the Afghan version of the shashka, which is often very difficult to discern from Uzbek examples, and the lower carrying ring is indeed placed on the outward (cutting curve).On the upper mount (closest to scabbard throat), the carrying ring is placed dead center on the outside (face) of scabbard.
This was sort of a 'quick draw' configuration that favored the Central Asian drawcut right out of the scabbard, the sword was worn edge up!
The red foil affectation was a decorative embellishment taken from Persian influence, recalling that the Afghans also favored the Persian shamshir, and the pierced mounts on those scabbards often had such features.

Since we know that tulwars from the Northwest frontier regions certainly diffused into Afghan regions, it would seem likely that an Afghan armourer mounting the weapon would construct a scabbard with mounts typical to the paluoars and even shashkas that he might furbish.

Again, this tulwar is fascinating in these mounts and reflects wonderfully comprehensive influences from these colorful powers and the times where the geopolitical conflicts in these regions were often referred to as "The Great Game".

All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 17th March 2007, 06:11 PM

Hi Jim,

Yes, this is true, but consider the hilt - a tulwar hilt with a hand guard!
The foil, red with gold on the backside is a puzzle to me, had it been the other way around, I would have said that the red would have given the gold a deeper colour, but when it is thís way, then I really don't know.
Jens

Jim McDougall · 17th March 2007, 06:33 PM

Hi Jens,
You're right, the red hue placed over gold does seem puzzling, but I have been told that Persians favored this and I wonder if it might have been to subdue the gold while carrying through the gleam, kind of a 'candy apple' effect. I recall many years ago in the custom car days that gold undercoat was often a primer to add the lustre to the 'candy apple red' so favored by car enthusiasts.

While the tulwar, especially with handguard, seemed atypical of the Afghans who favored the guardless shamshir, paluoar and even shashka, it may well be this was a captured weapon which was furbished especially for the warrior who owned it. If this was indeed a trophy weapon, it would not seem unlikely that the handguard was quite acceptable to the individual. While the style of swordsmanship for government forces of the Khan clearly leaned toward the British influences, as evidenced by the handguards on the previously discussed swords from the 1890's, it is interesting to note a warrior using this type tulwar with the 'drawcut' scabbard.

It is also interesting that such incongruent hybridization is seen as well on examples of these government handguards placed on huge blades of the well known 'Khyber knives'. I have forgotten who out there has one of these, but I think Rick will remember

!

All the best,
Jim

Pukka Bundook · 18th March 2007, 04:11 AM

Well chaps,
I find all this very interesting, but don't have much constructive to add

So how do you think I should mount this up?........Conventional, or "Quick-draw!?
I will bow to whichever way you learned Gentlemen think best!

Jim,
You mention "Government hand-guards"
Is that what we have here?
If so, what date roughly?

Do either of you know how the iron furniture was finished originally?
I would not re-finish these mounts, but wondered what they may have looked like when new.

Thank you again for your time and patience!

R.

17th March 2007, 04:22 AM	#1
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Jens, If I turn the fitting upside down and turn it, the decorative side won't be where the 'imprint' is. I can see we might bog down on this one, as it is hard to describe what I mean! Below are added some pictures. The first picture shows the middle fitting with the decorative side facing us. The "imprint" on the wood, shows that the decorative side was always On this side. As can be seen, this would appear to make the scabbard left-handed. #2, shows decoration and imprint aligned, but this means that the ring is on the cutting side of blade. #3, shows that with the ring in the usual position, (on the inside of the curve) the decoration does not line up quite with the 'imprint. #4, shows the 'imprint on this side of the scabbard. #5 shows the mount removed from decoration, it appears to have never been apart before, but notice, the ring is on the narrower side of the mount, as though it was indeed made to fit on the 'outsid' of the curve, ie, ring nearest the cutting edge. This struck me as a bit interesting, but if no-one has seen one mounted in this manner, I'll just mount it in the conventional way. Sorry this sounds a bit confusing!! Richard. Attached Images

17th March 2007, 11:28 AM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Richard, It all looks very strange, and it seems as if the ring has been placed on the outer curve, which, to my oppinion, would be most unusual. I think I would place the rings of the old and new fittings on the inner curve – maybe the user was very excentric. Btw the upper fitting, could very well have looked like the mid part of the fitting you show in detail. Nice pictures. Jens

17th March 2007, 02:41 PM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Jens, Yes, I think I'd better make this scabbard in the normal manner, even if this one Was made the other way around. ............Otherwise, everyone who saw it would be telling me, "You made it wrong!!"....(Even if "right" is "wrong" in this case!) I am looking forward to making the upper fitting, and agree that this would most likely be the same as the mid section of the middle fitting, maybe with some decoration only on the lower end. Do you have any idea how these iron mounts were finished, originally? Was wondering if they would be browned, blued, painted, or left bright. Also, a very thin Red foil was placed inside the pierced fittings, to show through. This foil has oxidized in part, and the colour has come off in places, leaving it transparent. Do you have any idea what this may have been? (The foil was gold on the inside, and red on the showing side) Please pardon all the questions! I find all this very interesting!!

17th March 2007, 06:02 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,616	Hi Richard, Actually the Afghan version of the shashka, which is often very difficult to discern from Uzbek examples, and the lower carrying ring is indeed placed on the outward (cutting curve).On the upper mount (closest to scabbard throat), the carrying ring is placed dead center on the outside (face) of scabbard. This was sort of a 'quick draw' configuration that favored the Central Asian drawcut right out of the scabbard, the sword was worn edge up! The red foil affectation was a decorative embellishment taken from Persian influence, recalling that the Afghans also favored the Persian shamshir, and the pierced mounts on those scabbards often had such features. Since we know that tulwars from the Northwest frontier regions certainly diffused into Afghan regions, it would seem likely that an Afghan armourer mounting the weapon would construct a scabbard with mounts typical to the paluoars and even shashkas that he might furbish. Again, this tulwar is fascinating in these mounts and reflects wonderfully comprehensive influences from these colorful powers and the times where the geopolitical conflicts in these regions were often referred to as "The Great Game". All the best, Jim

17th March 2007, 06:11 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, Yes, this is true, but consider the hilt - a tulwar hilt with a hand guard! The foil, red with gold on the backside is a puzzle to me, had it been the other way around, I would have said that the red would have given the gold a deeper colour, but when it is thís way, then I really don't know. Jens

17th March 2007, 06:33 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,616	Hi Jens, You're right, the red hue placed over gold does seem puzzling, but I have been told that Persians favored this and I wonder if it might have been to subdue the gold while carrying through the gleam, kind of a 'candy apple' effect. I recall many years ago in the custom car days that gold undercoat was often a primer to add the lustre to the 'candy apple red' so favored by car enthusiasts. While the tulwar, especially with handguard, seemed atypical of the Afghans who favored the guardless shamshir, paluoar and even shashka, it may well be this was a captured weapon which was furbished especially for the warrior who owned it. If this was indeed a trophy weapon, it would not seem unlikely that the handguard was quite acceptable to the individual. While the style of swordsmanship for government forces of the Khan clearly leaned toward the British influences, as evidenced by the handguards on the previously discussed swords from the 1890's, it is interesting to note a warrior using this type tulwar with the 'drawcut' scabbard. It is also interesting that such incongruent hybridization is seen as well on examples of these government handguards placed on huge blades of the well known 'Khyber knives'. I have forgotten who out there has one of these, but I think Rick will remember ! All the best, Jim

18th March 2007, 04:11 AM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Well chaps, I find all this very interesting, but don't have much constructive to add So how do you think I should mount this up?........Conventional, or "Quick-draw!? I will bow to whichever way you learned Gentlemen think best! Jim, You mention "Government hand-guards" Is that what we have here? If so, what date roughly? Do either of you know how the iron furniture was finished originally? I would not re-finish these mounts, but wondered what they may have looked like when new. Thank you again for your time and patience! R.