Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion

[RSWORD]

This is a very interesting Indian sword that I would love to get more feedback. The hilt is unlike any other Indian sword and has some interesting features to it. First is the swell in the grip. This seems very much like a Persian influence. The spatulate endings to the guard are interesting and seem common to Mughal period swords. The most interesting feature is the pommel on this sword. It is rather abstract but it seems to be "Tiger'esque". Also, the terminal ending to the knucklebow is an interesting "duckbill". I note two similar "duckbills" pictured in Elgoods new book on a cloth helmet owned by Tipu. Look at the top of the nasal protector and you have two of the exact same "duckbills" curved back down the slide. I have not seen this particular decor before so I have no pretensions that the "duckbill" is an exclusive decoration to Tipu related items nor do I have any pretenses that my sword has any association with Tipu however there are some interesting features worth discussion. Also, it has a big pattern welded kilij style blade with one of the boldest patterns I have ever seen. So, has anyone ran across similar hilts before? Look forward to the discussion.

[RSWORD]

Well, after some additional digging I found one similar hilt example but it raises more questions than it answers. In Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes de Charles Buttin on Planche XXXIII figure 789 there is pictured a sword with the same hilt but with a very English looking guard. The grip has the same swell and if you look close enough, it has the same type of pommel. I do not read French so I am unsure what the description states exactly but it does say "Epee Anglo-Hindoue". Apparently it has an European straight blade mounted up on this Hindu/English combination hilt. A most peculiar sword but very interesting given its grip similarity to my example. So, any other examples out there? Jens, Jim, Brian, Jeff? Any thoughts?

[Jeff D]

Hi Rick,

Very nice saber. In the photos it looks as if the quillions and guard are welded on. They also don't seem to follow the flow of the rest of the hilt. perhaps they are a later add on? Could you post a closer picture of the quillion and guard?

Thanks
Jeff

[Jeff D]

Hi again,

If you have Egerton, in his section of arms of North-Western India Plate XIII item 653 is a similar hilt which is what I suspect your hilt started as. The guard is also similar. it will be nice to hear other opinions.

All tyhe best
Jeff

[Conogre]

I've refrained from commenting as it seems inapropriate when all one can do is gush over a piece, but......well, gush!
Beautiful!

[tom hyle]

Ordinarily, each quillon has a sort of tang, and these are welded or soldered in between the two halves of the hilt.

[RSWORD]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the reference to Egerton. Yes, the quillons and guard are welded on but I do not believe they are later additions. The gold koftari on both match the grip quite well both in decoration and patina. It is interesting that the example I found in Buttin and the example you found in Egerton have the same grip but different guards and/or quillon. However, I was doing more digging through my references and ran across another example. This one has the exact same hilt but with shamshir blade. It is from an art musuem display from the 1970's. The only description they give for the sword is Mughal sword, 18th century. Here is the pic of the example

[Jeff D]

Hi Rick

Well, you certainly do have a mystery. On both pieces shown, the quillions appear welded on. Why? They are both very well made, certainly the smith was capable of making it from a single block, or masking the weld. I will see if I can find any more examples.

Jeff

[tom hyle]

Here is a man who has never taken apart a tulwar, I think They usually make the hilt in two hollow-backed shells, welded together, usually by a copper based solder (brazed), each half/shell is cross-shaped, and the arms, as well as the long leg are hollow (the "head" if you will, is flatter, thinner and forms the lagnets. The "leg" becomes the handle, and is also joined to the disc pommel, which may be made of as many as 4 or 5 pieces itself; the hollow remains hollow, to be filled with the pitch adhesive that holds the tang. Each hollow "arm" on the welded/soldered/brazed-up finished hilt is filled with basically a huge round nail. The nail-head (as it were) becomes the swelled tip of the quillon, while the nail itself (and mind you it isn't really a nail, but a purpose-made piece) fills the hollow quillons for part or all of their length. That is the usual tulwar hilt, and yeah, you're right; this ain't quite it that we're seeing here; it's certainly a variation, I'd say. The Turkish cross-shaped hilt may be structured differently, as well as Persian, kaskara ones, Swahili/Arab ones I've seen were split out of a single block, but with a small opening, requiring a seperate ferule. Oops; my shower's gonna run cold!

[tom hyle]

Now, the Lumad metal hilts are lost-wax-cast one piece brass, thick-walled, with a smaller hollow center, allowing a thin layer of adhesive between tang and hilt. They are said to be made by the women. Piso pedang report, please? African brass hilts; cast-on as usually said?

[Jeff D]

Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself.
I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples.

All the best
Jeff

[RSWORD]

Jeff

A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts.

[B.I]

hey rick,
sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in.
the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here.
the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well.
i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources . i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar.
the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions.
i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply.

[B.I]

hi rick,
another thing, i cant see the duck emblem on the tipu helmet in elgoods book, no matter how hard i look. all i can see is a symetrical representation of the bubri stripes, back to back and terminating in a chsselled tiger head. i'm not saying its not there, its just i cant see what you see.

[tom hyle]

BI, that pic stirs something; I've seen this hilt style made of stone somewhere.....

[Jens Nordlunde]

B.I.
To be more precice, the picture you have attached is from the exhibition Splendeur des Armes Orientales, and can be seen in the catalogue of the same name. The text reads: The hilt Deccani, Mahratta(?), probably late 17th century.

What Tom writes about the hilts is new to me too – interesting, we live to learn.
Tom maybe the stone hilt you are thinking of is #167 in the above-mentioned catalogue.
In the catalogue ‘Persian and Indo-Persian Arms and Armour of 16th – 19th Century from Polish Collections’, is shown a shamshir with a hilt of the same type. The text reads: Indo-Persian sabre 18th – 19th century.

Rsword, you really have a very nice sword, and I understand if you are proud of it. Just like B.I., I too have a weakness for this kind of Indian watering which shows very well.
I have a chevron blade where the light parts have the same watering – typical Indian. The hilt is, like B.I. writes, influenced from different cultures, and the koftgari very nice and remarkably intact.

[B.I]

almost jens, it is the same sword but i took the image from david alexanders catalogue of the khalili collection (who bought the sword after the parisian exhibition). i mention this because he doesnt mention a possible maharatha connection, which i agree is a little spurious. both this hilt and ricks share the same persian influence, which i dont think effected the maharathan culture. the murals that prevailed throughout their dominance in the region, and the distinctive style of basket hilt have always hinted at a purer hindu heritage in art style, as apposed the the mughal influence and a persian heritage. i think ricketts saw the quillions which hint at a deccani style, but i think the persionised pommel cap hint at heavily influenced style, inherant in more mughal pieces. also, the deccan sultanate took its influences from a persian culture which wasnt maharathan at all. only an opinion and still desperately trying to add to my 'nice sword rick' contribution
yes, jens. lets hope the rest of the commercial world doesnt catch up with our passion for this style of watering. i'm quite happy with indian watering being overshadowed by the more sought after persian style. it makes it still affordable...almost.

[B.I]

images of a persian 'duck'. i'm a big fan of comparative iconography as a metalworker didnt necessarily just make arms and cultures were influenced 'across the board'.

[CharlesS]

Magnificent South Indian piece Rick! Quality from top to bottom, with some interesting "quirks"!

[Radu Transylvanicus]

Well, the hilt itself is Indo-Arabic, some might get tempted to associate it with Mysore due to the similarities with the ,,tiger type,, (Sultan Tipu).
The paraj (knuckle-guard) of swan type I`ve seen it on Mughal swords comming out of Gujarat mostly, examples from 17th - 18th century if memory does not play tricks on me, same hilt/pommel same richness in gold decoration.
One thing I cannot find corespondent are the unusual tholia (quillions) but our coleagues have seem to manage finding something similar even though without much data info, we see it is not an isolated case. I am fascinated by their beauty as I`ve not seen them before and I would avoid categorise them as a variation of the down-pointed quillions of the pulwar (puloar) swords.
A good post with lots to learn from, proving that still there is so much to discover still ...

[Jim McDougall]

This is outstanding discourse on this beautiful sabre, and excellent work with all the references cited and noted! It's always great to see observations supported with references as the 'mystery' unfolds. While I can't add much to what has been already clearly determined, I agree with the consensus of this being a southern form of weapon, and with Tipu-esque characteristics. The trefoil or fluer-de-lis form quillon terminals are interesting, and I would offer may be associated with Tipu and his father's close associations with the French and their influences militarily. From another perspective, I cannot help but notice the similarity of these fluerets to the upper part of the hilt of the 'anthropomorphic ' form of the chilanum ( Elgood "Hindu Arms & Ritual", p.175, #16.28 ) which is from Deccani sultanate early 17th c. possibly earlier.

Another question concerning the interesting material on the 'duckbill' form on the curled back knuckleguard. In a discussion with a collector some time ago, we were discussing this distinct feature as often occurs on Central Asian edged weapons, such as certain Afghan and other examples. These extremely stylized forms often seemed to resemble either nagan or dragon type figures, at that point not considering the 'duck' possibility, and he suggested these were something he called 'ice bird' but could not distinguish further.
Could anyone elaborate on what type bird this might be and significance on weapons there?

Best regards,
Jim

Radu: just noticed your post citing the swan, could this be what the reference to ice-bird might be?

[RSWORD]

Gentleman

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I appreciate the additional information and overall "brainstorming". I think it will take additional research and time to find another matching example with better provenance to help tie down where this thing may have originated.

The pommel is still perplexing me. Comparable Persian hilts tend to be lions and realistic. Of course, Tipu and his tiger pommels were also large and realistic. This one, which I think is closer to a tiger than a lion, is quite abstract.

Brian, if you look at the example of Tipu's helmet on p. 60, the nasal protector at the very top which extends above the top of the padding, you see the terminal ending which is a tiger. If you look at the downcurving projections from that tiger, they are elongated "duckbills". If you turn the book sideways when looking at this downcurving projection from the tiger head, I believe you will see what I am talking about.

Another interesting sword for comparison purposes is in Buttin's "Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes" in the very back in Planche XXXII. Example 1005 is listed as an Arabic Saif, 16th or 17th century, but if you look closely at the pommel, it seems abstract and although not exactly like my example, there seems to be similarities. Buttins description, which although I do not read French, could make out that he attributes this stylized "monster" pommel to Singalese influences. I do not know that that association is accurate in this paricular case but the abstract look of the pommel was interesting.

Man, I am all over the board with this one. Sweet!

[Radu Transylvanicus]

Well, for what is worth my opinion as far as geo-origin my opinion is west-central India: Gujarat, Rajahstan mainly. The sword if not Mughal, is very much inspired by the Mughal armorial products. The one piece metal hilt is much like ones west of Hindoostani borders, an afghano-persian qabzah while the blade remains of Hindu style and facture, a very close relative of the popat hilt (Indian arms and armour vol. II , by Dr. Pant od National Museum in New Delhi, a treasure of a book I received recently from a dear friend ) an Hindu adoption of Persian hilt.
Now the very good news: the swan neck knuckle guards are specific to late 17th, early 18th century west central India from Punjab to Gujarat . Now if thats the case can you imagine what a real treasure this is ?
And Jim, yes, I incline thats the case with ,,ice-bird,, definition (swan-neck is kind of personal definition, not to be confused with any scholar denomination, it just seem to me as the natural name, therefore I used it). Mughal gardens were home to gracefull, exotic large birds with opulent forms and plumage, peacock being absolute king but that was a male symbol, and in order to counterbalance the yin-yang in this sabre the knuckleguard swan (female and smaller in size and importance but nevertheless gracious) vs the pommel tiger/lion ( to put an end to RSWORDS dilema India is home even now but in the past even more to both lions and tigers ) as male symbol, larger in size. What is in red colour is my pure supossition without solid suport.

[B.I]

hi rick,
i'm sorry, i still cant see it. i personally think the top nasal bar is a tiger's head, which extends down to 2 bubri shapes, which extend to an additional 2 bubri shapes. i think the form of a duck (sorry, swan ) is coincidental. a minor point, but as this is all heading towards symbolism, the form of a bubri was inherant on all tipuesque pieces, where i have always thought this duck shape to be of persian influence. a trip back to the the army museum is long overdue and i think this a good reason for making the effort. maybe in the flesh it will be apparant.
radu, i must admit jumping up to bite, when reading your post. however, your colour coding makes it all clear, and i wonder if this was done to provoke such a reaction . as a factual contribution, i would highly question what you say. as an unfounded opinion, i completely appreciate and accept what you say . a few questions though. why gujerat/punjab? also, why do you think the bird head to be inherant in an indian style, and not persian in influence? i've always though this style of birds head to be uncommon on indian pieces and have only seen it on more 'indo-persian' items. if you look at comparative art, this style doesnt seem to exist, whereas a more peacock shape does. i'm not saying the animal wasnt around in india, i'm just not aware of it existing as an indian 'symbol'. yari heads were common through mythology, as were the peacock, tiger heads, stylised dragons etc. and yet, this 'duck' shape keeps cropping up in persian art from the 18th/19thC (and going back to the 16thC in a more stylised form) but rarely in indian art, unless in a piece thats heavily influenced by persian culture.
i believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar. i'm not saying this duck shape didnt exist in india, its just i'm not aware of examples and would like to see where your coming from.
also, pant is a little dangerous to quote from (sorry, i'm assuming the gujerat thing could have come from there as you mentioned both together. apologies if my assumption is unfounded). his rise through the ranks of museum personel was done as a successful businessman, and not necessarily a passionate arms academic. his knowledge was slight and the 'howlers' he wrote in his many books proved just this. also, a good friend knew him well and went to his funeral. he also admitted pants lack of knowledge even on a very basic level. he said it was almost embarrassing to have a conversation with him sometimes, especially in company as you didnt want to disagree. unfortunately, he has been replaced by a man of similar knowledge (kk. sharma) who is a very friendly man, apparantly, but again, with very little knowledge base.
the indian thing is a long, learning curve with no definate hope for results. for this reason, i hold comparative art quite highly as it is the only way to break through to find possible results. all that has been written has to be questioned and taken with a pinch of salt, even going as far back as egerton, hendley, watt, cole etc.
we have more access to information now, in the sculpture, miniatures and decorative arts, even though they spent much of their lives in the actual areas paving the way for us to try and push it all further.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Brian you wrote ‘I believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar.’
I am with you when you write about the slender neck, but that is not what makes the difference when it comes to these two big birds. The difference is the beak, when a peacock is shown the beak is pointed, and when it is a swan the beak is broad and round – not pointed at all.

Radu, if you find a reference inadequate, I would suggest that you ask about it. If the information is a hand, I am sure you will get an answer, if it is possible.

[B.I]

hey jens,
i hear what your saying. i suppose i have always assumed the form to be a peacock, without giving it a thought to being something else. in a sculpted form, your beak will make it clear. as an engraving, however, this would be less obvious. also, remember not all decorative art is up to the standard of your own collection. i have seen artists of such poor stature that i'm sure they were aiming for a peacock but produced a very ugly duck-like creature that could only be loved by its mother

[Jens Nordlunde]

Brian, I always thought it was Walt Disney/Carl Barks who invented Donald Duck, but I must be wrong .

[B.I]

not sure what you are implying, jens, but carl barks was a comic genius and if he intended donald to be anything other than a duck, it would have been obvious and history would be slightly different

[Jens Nordlunde]

I seem to remember that I have seen heads like the one on the pommel before, described as lion heads, but I have no reference – I am sorry.
As to the head on the hand guard. I have a feeling that it could well be a swans head, as I some time back read about swans – only I did not take much notice, and now I can’t remember where I read it, but it could have been in François Bernier’s ‘Travels in the Mogul Empire AD 1656-1668’.
The decoration on the hilt could be a geometrical pattern, or it could be stylized flowers. Flowers, like Lilies, Lotuses, Roses, Chrysanthemum Indicum and many others, were used a lot for decoration on hilts and in other places. When ordering a hilt, you went to a gold smith, where you from drawings on palm leaves, could chose the decoration you liked best.
What do you think the decoration on this hilt is, geometrical or stylized flowers?

[Radu Transylvanicus]

I leave Dr. Pant in the eye of the beholder, cert fact is that he is much deeper than Eggerton, which was quoted and used without problem and we all know what his background was.
B.i. I stick with Rajasthan and Gujarat (CW India) as I believe this to have much Mughal in it. As far as ,,ice-bird,, (swan,duck,peacock...) I reffered to it as actually Persian symbol (pardon me if I got you confused) not Indian but as a inheritance via Mughals, the Islamic half not the Hindoo half, the Hindoo half was rather reserved for the other beast head.
I left unmentioned yesterday but very pertinent i see Jens bringing the floral motif executed in ,,Islamic,, fashion, symililarities with Mughal tiles are more than striking...
Unless Pant was wrong mentioning relatively similar swords in his museum as being Gujarati, Rajahstani I sustain as being from that area, his involvement resumes to this.
Before we light anymore fuses and blow a spark just like in case of the yathagans its next to impossible to claim 100% apartenence to one small region, specially when artifacts come from a subcontinent so interactive like Hindustan and they look cloned regardless they were made one hundred or one thousand years ago...
P.S. nothing could be more hilarious than us pointing each other as working on ,,suppositions,, , B.I. do you not work based on that like I do ? Perhaps at times mines are more bold and some get touchy ...