Indian Tulwar: important?

[ariel]

We all remember chapter 12 In the Elgood's book on Hindu arms : "Four Important 16th or early 17th century South Indian Swords".
One of them is a tulwar with a European blade and it's importance is due entirely to the handle: bowl-shaped with protruding baluster. Elgood associates it with urulis ( cooking vessel), purna kalasa ( bowl of plenty, which is a symbol of Durga) or islamic divining bowls. For us, simple people, it is reminescent of the Sumatran piso podangs. Photo from the book included for easy reference.

I just got a very nice tulwar with an unusually thick blade, yelman and some decorations on the blade. But the handle was what intrigued me: an identical copy of the "important" one.

So, my question: are those indeed rare? Is my sword also important? :-)

[ariel]

Now, the handle

[spiral]

Originally Posted by ariel

Is my sword also important? :-)

Thats for you to decide Ariel, as in my estimation "Important" often means in my limited expierience that the dealers selling it want at lest 4 times what it cost them in auction a week earlier rather than thier usual double your money deals.

To me whats important is whats important to me, others may have other criteri of whats important.

Eye of the beholder & all that..

Spiral


ps I should say Ive seen 100% provinanced Afghan & NWF rather roughly made talwar with such hollowed capped hilt designs as well.

[ariel]

Personal affinity is an important factor in our choices of collecting particular examples, no doubt. Also, neither Elgood, nor myself intend to sell these two swords for outrageous prices.
Surely you understand I meant " important" in a different sense. This is just a matter whether these weapons represent an " important" stage in the development, or prove transition from one region to another. I do not recall many ( or any) examples of such a pommel on the Afghan or NWF tulwars, neither could I find one in the Pant's book; can you direct me to them? Surely, you did not mean Pulowar hilts.
Thanks.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel,

These hilts can be seen in ‘The Adventures of Hamza’, showing painted pictures made for Akbar in mid 16th century - a detail is attached.

In your post you write, “For us, simple people, it is reminiscent of the Sumatran piso podangs”.

I will not argue with you, as I can’t prove from where these hilts origin, but I do find it possible that these hilt form was brought from Deccan/South India to Sumatra and other places, as the Indians, in the very early centuries had founded colonies/kingdoms over big parts of SEA, and ambassadors were send to and from China to keep the good relationship.

For further reference see, Suvaruadvipa, Hindu Colonies of the Far East, by R.C.Majumder. If you are interested in history, it is interesting reading.

Jens

[ariel]

Thanks, Jens!
Of course, the Sumatran hilts stem form the Indian, and not vice versa. Sorry if my original sentence was confusing. Do you, as Elgood does, think that this type of pommel is of the 16-17th century origin?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel,

I believe this hilt type is quite a bit older than 16th to 17th century, but so far I have to prove it J.

To prove it would take quite a lot of research, and for the moment I am engaged in some other research, and then follows another one, and another one.

Although I have stopped to work, I do sometimes wonder from where I get the time.

Jens

[ariel]

No respite for the sinners :-)
Just to think I am looking forward to retirement...
Glad to know it is objectively " important". The equivalent of a family lunch in a Chinese take-out was well spent:-)
Many thanks.

Ariel

[spiral]

My post was my honest thoughts & immediate feelings Ariel, i did understand what you & indeed Elgood meant, My answear still stands though.

It hadnt occured to me when I posted my repley but, I can still recall, that one of the rarest, most well crafted, unusual & possibly expensive Piha Katta grips ever seen when posted for the second tiome on this forum, inspired your comment something along the lines of you that you failed to see why it was important. {Havent bothered to look up the thread so please forgive me if my recall is inaccurate.} Thats fair enough, Thats how I see things, as individuals we all do decide whats important for us. If a demi God like Elgood says something is important the nature of man is that many of us will agree.

Sadley the provinaced pieces I was thinking of collected pre, 1920 {By an Infamous British Officer.} {who had also picked up the jewled Piha kaetta hilt somewher on his travels} & earlier that I once posesesd are long gone, It was a group of 3 blades, a customised Afghan Sashqa & two Afghan tulwars all with identical blades bearing, what is usualy refered to on this forum as Mazar al sharif arsenal markings. {In fact I understand more recent research appears is actualy the Afghanistan goverement ownership marking & was often placed on firearms as well as swords & bayonets etc. made & stored in Kabul arsenal.}

But I digress & sadley I cant link to any esteemeed authers on the subject, & also have to state I cant guarantee any rehandling of the Afghan blades had ever occured pre 1920 or that Although he served in the 3rd Afghan war thathe hadnt picked them up elswhere pre.1920.


I still think whats important is mostly personal, but of course concide some pieces are important to many or most of us serious collectors.

Either way you have an interesting sword, sadley it may mean Ive let more important pieces move on to new guardians than I realised, but if thats the case, then hopefully thier current guardians are the right people for them to be with.


spiral

[ariel]

Spiral,

The thread you refer to discusses Italian-made Piha Kaetta. My one and only remark on the subject was:
"If the Italians can make Piha Kaettas, why wouldn't the Rajastanis make Dhas or the Thais Kastanes?
Weapons know not borders.....
(Am I misquoting someone famous?)"

Well, I was prophetic:-) :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=758

As you see, there was not a trace of sarcasm or disrespect. Your recall was, indeed, inaccurate. But that's beyond the point.

My point is that there are "subjective importances" and "objective importances". The former cannot be judged, the latter must. Dom's example of a 150 years old nimcha-like dagger from his military unit is a wonderful example of the former (BTW, Dom, congratulations!). But even the most plain sword providing evidence for a groundbreaking event or development, or belonging to a truly famous historical personality is objectively important. This is where I think my new tulwar belongs. Thanks to Jens for providing the confirmation.
Best wishes,
Ariel

[spiral]

Originally Posted by ariel

Your recall was, indeed, inaccurate. But that's beyond the point.
Best wishes,
Ariel

I meant the Piha Katta in this thread Ariel.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=bonhams

In which you said,

Originally Posted by ariel

I would not have guessed Ceylonese either, fail to see the importance of it and would not dream of bidding on it, but what the heck!

But I agree about your description of objective importance, for myself the examples listed would come under whats personaly important to me as well, I just think not evryone always agrees on exactly what makes a piece important.

I think we both regard with respect many pieces as important. Just not always exactly the same pieces.

Thanks for the link to other thread, Id somehow missed that one

All the best,
Spiral