Tulwar, Talwar ID help please.

[Badgerbag]

Hi, I picked this up in a 2nd hand shop in England about 50 years ago, and know nothing of its history. The crude EIC stamp I’ve always assumed was East India Company, and the 65 in the middle could mean anything. There are no other markings on it.

If anyone could shed any light on its origin (presumably India) or age I would be very grateful.

Many thanks
Tim

[Nihl]

Quite striking geometry on that hilt! Yes, I would assume the EIC is East India Company. This whole piece was likely made in the mid-late 19th century, though the unusually angular hilt makes geographical attribution a bit difficult. I would say probably northwest/central Indian, based on the fact that the Rajputs were fans of tulwars with (relatively) spiky hilts, but it's possible it could've been made further south too. Many south indian hilts, when not elaborately chiseled/pierced/etc., were of relatively plain form, meaning they're a pain in the butt to track down lol. Regardless, I'd say north Indian is probably your safest/best bet here.

[Jim McDougall]

I am with Nihl on this, and this is pretty much the well known styling on many tulwar hilts from Rajasthan, as noted the Rajputs are known to have had these sharply defined bulge in center grip.
The EIC device is post 1857 after the dissolution of the East India Company proper into the Indian government with Queen Victoria emplaced as the Empress of India . Eventually the acronym became EIG (East India government), but I think this blade is probably 1800s+ as is the hilt.
These tulwars were produced for use not only in many of the native cavalry units during the Raj, but private British sponsored enterprises had their own security forces.

It is pretty much futile to geographically or regionally assess or classify tulwar hilts (despite the valiant efforts of G.N.Pant, 1980) unless there is distinct decorative motif. There were many locations in Rajasthan where hilts were produced and exported throughout the princely states to be mounted and decorated etc. Tulwars were not particularly favored in the south though the Deccan saw considerable presence with Mughals using them.

From Kutch, Gujerat, Rajasthan, Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab, Delhi, the Northwest regions into what is now Afghanistan......tulwar country.
The British Raj in India, fascinating history!

This tulwar is a great example of that history in the weapons used.

[ariel]

East India Company ceased to exist as a colonizing force after the Sepoy Rebellion in 1859. So, this tulwar is most likely first half of the 19th century.
And the geometry of handle is, IMHO, just a well known Udaipuri. Most likely Mughal.

However, things can be more complicated: handles and blades were interchangeable, and a chance of getting the original pair is not very high.
That's why Elgood wrote that Indian swords in the Victoria and Albert Museum , mostly collected before ~1870, have not original handles, but those in the Wallace collection ( bought after ~1870) sport original ones.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

However, things can be more complicated: handles and blades were interchangeable, and a chance of getting the original pair is not very high.

Well I agree but this statment applies to at least of 80% of ethno swords, not only Indian ones...
From Takouba to Katana

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Kubur;262367]Well I agree but this statment applies to at least of 80% of ethno swords, not only Indian ones...
From Takouba to Katana[/QUOTE

Very well noted, in the ethnographic spheres, blades were inclined to circulate note only for generations, but even centuries. In the Sahara, we know that numbers of medieval blades entered trade networks centuries ago, and it would be impossible to know how many incarnations they experienced before finally collected into European hands.
It is pretty standard traditionally to remount blades as they were handed down, and if traded into new region, of course the locally favored styling would be adapted.

Udaipur was but one of the numerous Rajasthan centers for blades, and the Pant reference suggests that this 'peaked' style grip came from that location. However it seems this 'style' could have been broader in use and applied to occurrence in other of the Rajasthan centers as well.

Defining these hilts as to which denomination used would be difficult as well but these seem more inclined to Rajputs and Sikhs, and others. These pyramid/triangle shape marks on blades and materials were in use much later, as noted after the 'Sepoy Rebellion' (1857) and more into 1870s+ The old East India Co. standing lion marking was used on gun locks into 1840s.

East India Company prior to these type government marks never placed bale marks on their sword blades (as told to me by David Harding, "Small Arms of the East India Company" many years ago.

Regarding the pairing of blades and hilts, there was a standing supposition some years ago that hilts and blades were deliberately kept disconnected in storage in armories to defeat ready arming of insurrections, but this was I believe disproven. It was more a matter of imported hilts being paired with stocks of blades in arsenals as required by the princely states and principalities outside those being outfitted by British suppliers by the 1870s.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Well I agree but this statment applies to at least of 80% of ethno swords, not only Indian ones...
From Takouba to Katana

Undoubtedly, sword handles, especially made of organic material, h a tendency to deteriorate and were replaced. That was true also with full-metal handles as well.
But generally, the style of a handle remained the same.
India, however, was a multiethnic entity with decidedly ethnic styles. And that helps to figure out the blade/handle compatibility. Also,some styles of handles help in dating. And on top of that, there are minute details differentiating age and locality of manufacture.
In the majority of cases compatibility and lack thereof is doable by super-specialists of the Elgood’s caliber. Jens can do it with katars like few others.

I can pick up the crudest differences only.....

[Kubur]

Hi Ariel,

I should develop here.
For Nimcha, takouba, kaskara, the differences are obvious with local hilts and imported blades. With Japanese swords, it is another league and a "national sport". Blades were kept in families for hundred of years, mounted and remounted on new hilts, up to the WWII.
Elgood's great discovery was to say "eh guys, it is not because you have an Indian sword with an Indian hilt and an Indian blade that the sword has a unique provenance". It was a big kick in the ass for many curators...

[Badgerbag]

Wow! Thanks very much everyone. What a fascinating topic.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

India, however, was a multiethnic entity with decidedly ethnic styles. And that helps to figure out the blade/handle compatibility. Also,some styles of handles help in dating. And on top of that, there are minute details differentiating age and locality of manufacture.

Just quoting this to emphasize it/because I agree with it so much. There truly are a fascinating amount of minute details that separate different regional styles, at least back in the day when they were actually produced solely in their native regions. I myself am very much a student to this subject, as much of a fools game as it might seem, as it becomes quite rewarding to be able to look at south indian objects and attribute them to somewhere outside of just "the deccan" and Thanjavur lol.

[Richard G]

A couple of points -
The sword, including the hilt, could be British. Most of those we come across are marked 'Mole', but who's to say there aren't any unmarked ones.
Although the EIC was nationalised after the Mutiny and all it's 'governmental' functions were removed it did limp on as a minor commercial concern for another 15 years, principally, I believe, as a tea agent or shipper. I have no idea whether or not it imported British tulwars into India.
Best wishes
Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

Just quoting this to emphasize it/because I agree with it so much. There truly are a fascinating amount of minute details that separate different regional styles, at least back in the day when they were actually produced solely in their native regions. I myself am very much a student to this subject, as much of a fools game as it might seem, as it becomes quite rewarding to be able to look at south indian objects and attribute them to somewhere outside of just "the deccan" and Thanjavur lol.

Nihl, we are all 'students' of this most intriguing field, and constantly learning. That is what is most important, as we share observations, notes, ideas and examples we all advance in the shared knowledge.

G.N.Pant in his notably useful book (1980) made a valiant effort in trying to classify hilts by regions and similar classifications. These were reasonably supported, however with the reality of the constant flux and diffusion of weapons the most important factor he did establish was establishing a certain semantics in noting particular styles and features. While not always exactly correct, these present an effective 'rule of thumb'.

To those of us deeply involved in seriously pursuing the continued study of these most fascinating and extremely esoteric weapons, it is most assuredly far from a fools game (though the 'name game' does get a bit pretentious).
Robert Elgood very much 'set the stage' for the current levels of understanding we now have , and the other serious scholars who have constantly kept the pace in kind have given us remarkable knowledge in the quest.

It is true, the effort to use distinct and concise classification to Indian weapons is pretty difficult to achieve in many (often even most) cases, but the efforts of those who have toiled to narrow these down have given us most exciting results.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

A couple of points -
The sword, including the hilt, could be British. Most of those we come across are marked 'Mole', but who's to say there aren't any unmarked ones.
Although the EIC was nationalised after the Mutiny and all it's 'governmental' functions were removed it did limp on as a minor commercial concern for another 15 years, principally, I believe, as a tea agent or shipper. I have no idea whether or not it imported British tulwars into India.
Best wishes
Richard

Well noted Richard, I recall having a couple of those 'MOLE' marked tulwars years ago and always thought them most interesting. I believe there were considerable others that were unmarked (I think these tulwars were all produced latter 19th even as late as 1920s).
There were many tulwars which were produced by armourers and outfitters situated in India, and these were of course unmarked. While supposedly most British exports to India went through the 'stores' channel, many did not and circumvented that official venue (ISD=India Stores Dept).

As a 'private' entity now under the British government of India, rather than its own controlling de facto government there, the 'Company' no longer maintained its own army and indeed focused on commodities and commercial affairs. As such it likely had security forces much as many larger enterprises and concerns so arms marked in this manner were much as materials traded.