A thought on Indian weapons

[Gonzalo G]

Jens, I think we can make such a presumption, but the continuos sharpening is only a circumstantial evidence of a possible and probable change of hilt, not a conclussive one. We cannot infere automaticcaly one fron the other. But your point is very good, tough I think we can find relatively unused blades with the hilts changed all over the world.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Lew]

As far as changing of the hilts goes my theory is one size does not fit all. So as a sword is recycled through it's different owners each being slightly taller or shorter with varying hand sizes one could assume that the hilt could be easily replace to fit the individual warrior. Take a look at this photo from the 19th century they three are not Indian but are a good example of what I am talking about.

Lew

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your answers. I am of course guessing, as I can’t know for sure.

When it comes to the hilt sizes there is something strange. On almost all the hilts on the tulwars, the grips are within 5 mm, from 7.5 cm to 8.0 cm. The smaller hilts must have been made for children; I know of bigger hilts, but they are rare, and sometimes you see the disc has been removed, maybe to give room for a bigger hand.

[Pukka Bundook]

Good morning Jens,

I think if a hilt has koftgari in good condition and a worn blade, there is a strong likelihood of the blade being rehilted....but for a blade with a munitions grade hilt it would be rather hard to say.

Apart from the old tulwar I have that had been attacked with an angle-grinder, I have never seen a tulwar with severe grind-marks to the edge. Could this mean that a worn blade was sharpened many many times, by removing the least possible amount of metal, and not just a few times by someone removing a lot of 'beef' all at once?
I would think so, as these were often heirlooms as well as weapons, and I would imagine that they were preserved as well as possible and not sharpened away needlessly.

I have a rather old tulwar, with the blade worn down by maybe 25%, but the hilt in this case has most of the koftgari worn away, so the two parts may be original to each other.
I have often wondered when a tulwar blade was considered to be past being useful.
The worn one mentioned above, has the sometimes seen rather thick spine, but the blade is now rather narrow.
I wonder; It has been kept sharp, so was it considered a viable sword to take to a fight?......a secondry weapon?

Re. hilt size;
Most are tight for westerners as we know, but the more one handles them, the better they feel! (Just my opinion!....maybe my hand shrunk)
I know that in parts of India, people have very small hands compared to Europeans.
Sometimes there is talk of the first finger being placed over the cross, but I think not, and don't want to open that discussion again.
When looking at some katars a while ago, I found I could not fit my hand into any of them, ....and with a katar there is nowhere to place the 'extra' fingers!.....so must deduct that the tulwar hilts fit the inended users well enough. I
I will try and take a picture of my worn-away blade, and show here.

Best wishes,

Richard.

[Jeff D]

Beautiful Talwar Jens,

It is a interesting feature you bring up Jens. You see the narrowing from frequent sharpening not uncommonly on Talwars with laminated or mono-steel, and rarely on wootz blades. This same feature can be seen on some central Asian sabers but rarely anywhere else. I have read, but can't remember where, that the Sikhs' were obsessive with sharping their blades. It was mentioned that it was quite a dishonor to have a dull blade. I would think then that the narrowing more represents use and custom more than age. Your point that a hilt with minimum wear would not likely be original to a well used blade, would seems valid.
Is it possible that the blade was intentionally ground down to lighten the blade? If so then your hilt may in-fact have been the original one.

All the Best
Jeff

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hello Richard,

Well actually the time is 16.30 – so morning and morning, but I will let this one pass.

We will never know how common it was to change the hilts, but we can try to guess, looking at the type of hilt/decoration and how worn the blade is. Some blades were used/kept for reasons of veneration, but the hilt could have been changed, due to the change of fashion – depending of how big the owner’s purse was.

Like it has been mentioned, it is likely to believe that in most cases the owner or one of his servants made the sharpening, and why sharpening the edge not being used? This is likely the reason why most blades are worn at the curve. Please remember, that swords were expensive, so when sharpening the blade there is no reason to believe they removed more steel than necessary.

I have, unfortunately seen a file or a grinder used on a blade, and it took me a long time to remove the marks – attached.

I am grateful that you will not open the topic about the hilt sizes, as I get red spots all over when the discussion starts. The Indians have a finer bone structure than most Europeans, and that is the reason why their hands fit the katar and tulwar hilts.

Hello Jeff,

If you grinded the blade down intentionally to get a lighter blade, would you do it at the curve? I think I would do it closer to the hilt, as a relatively good weight, close to the tip of the blade, would be important when striking, so I really think that the 5 mm missing are wear from sharpening. If the sharpening was done, carefully, it would have taken quite a few times of sharpening to remove five millimetres of the blade.

Here is also a picture of the hilt - worn, but still nice.

[Rick]

I have the dubious honor of owning a wootz Bikaner armory sword that shows exactly the kind of grinding wheel marks that Jen's example shows .