Strtaight Blade Tulwar

[RobertGuy]

The second of my recent purchases from the re-enactors market. Again it cost not a lot but I was attracted to it because of the straight blade which I haven't seen often on a tulwar. I don't know if the blade is European or indigenous. It is a light and flexible blade which reminds me of a Scottish backsword type if I had to pick something European.There are twin fullers, one central down to the tip and one to the back rdge which ends bout 10 inches short. The hilt is very plain, no knuckle bow and not even a hint of decoration around the boss of the pommel dish.. No markings at all on hilt or blade.

Weight: 1lb 8oz (0.68kg)
Length overall: 37.5'' (95cm) Blade: 33'' (84cm)
POB: 8'' (20cm)
Profile taper: 1.51'' (38.5mm) at ricasso, 1.27'' (32.4mm)at mid blade, 1.02'' (26mm) 2 inches from tip. Blade widens to about 1.2'' (30.7 mm) roughly 7'' (18cm) from the tip.
Distal taper 0.24'' (6.2mm) at ricasso, 0.13'' (3.4mm)at mid blade,. 0.09'' (2.3mm) 2 inches from tip.

All comments gratefully received as always

[Jim McDougall]

Robert, as you have already observed, this sword is pretty rudimentary, and probably not of great age. While the hilt is of course 'tulwar' in the standard Indo-Persian style, it is unusual to have a straight blade.

These are described in Rawson, ( "The Indian Sword", 1969, p.30, p.90),and termed in the south in Hindu parlance, 'sukhela', in the Deccan, the 'dhup', and in Mughal , in Persian 'asa shamsher' (=staff sword).

A number of these kinds of swords were found in the Tanjore armoury when it was broken up in 1863 (" The Old Tanjore Armory", Walhouse, 'Indian Antiquary', Vol. VII, 1878). While this example likely well post dates this event, I added that as a point of reference.
This does not seem to be a European blade which would of course have been so marked.
The term 'firangi' is applied generally to virtually all forms of Indian sword mounted with 'foreign' blade, and supercedes the locally recognized terms I most cases. Again, just for reference if this had been a European blade.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Robert,

I think that what you are talking about is a Firangi not a Tulwar.

The Tulwar is characterised not as much by the hilt (which is common for several North Indian swords: Tulwar, Tegha-first photo, Soussun Pata-second photo, Firangi, Shamshir and even Kukri-third photo) as it is by the curved, single edged blade, occasionaly featuring a yelman.

Regarding the blade, it looks almost certainly European (Solingen?) but is difficult to say for sure from the photos.

Regards,

Marius

[Jim McDougall]

The terms used for swords have long presented an ever running conundrum that we as students of arms have described as 'the name game'. Much of this derives from the terms used by collectors to describe their items, but which have filtered into the lexicon of words used by arms writers in the books used as references by legions of collectors, students and of course other writers.

Philip Rawson tried to categorize these weapons in "The Indian Sword" in 1967, and brought forth the terms used by Egerton, Walhouse and other writers earlier, however his focus was mostly on blades. It by then had become apparent that 'tulwar' was primarily a term for sword in general in Indian parlance, but typically seemed only applied to the Indo-Persian hilt we know so well. Rawson seems to have well realized the complexity and treacherous aspects of trying to use hilts in classification. In India, the descriptive word most commonly used for sword was tulwar. In reading literature and accounts of the British Raj, the swords used by Indian cavalry which were often three bar guard European style cavalry sabres, were often called 'tulwar'.

As Marius has pointed out and well shown, these familiar hilts are mounted on many other 'forms' of blades in the Subcontinent which by the blade type become other classifications such as tegha; sukhela (as with Robert's); and others. With these, their classification succumbs to whatever term the blade is called by. This becomes problematic for example with the 'sosun-patta' in which case if the hilt is tulwar, it is a Mughal type, while if it has a khanda hilt ('Hindu basket hilt) it is a Hindu type. So then if a sword is called sosun patta, why are the hilts different on various examples? In most cases, the describer relents and terms it either Mughal sosun patta or Hindu sosun patta, using the means most dreaded by most collectors, 'qualification'. Most collectors want to call a weapon by a single word or term, but such laconic classification is not always possible in the constant variation and combining of forms and elements.

In 1980. G.N.Pant in his work "Indian Arms & Armour", desperately tried to resolve many of these ongoing classification conflicts with both swords and daggers by focusing his typology on hilts, and throughout his text describes 'errors' by both Egerton and Rawson.
His work has become a landmark reference as a benchmark for the classification of Indian weapons, however with the caveat that many of the categorization of hilts, particularly 'tulwars', were arbitrary and without sufficient foundation for regional or dynastic applications.

In the study of swords, a number of writers have well noted that with the ever present phenomenon of blades transcending geographic and cultural boundaries through trade, colonization, conquest and occupation, and other events, it is best to remember that hilts are locally or categorically applied to these blades. This is in whatever form or style preferred.

This maelstrom of terminology used to describe swords and edged weapons has been long compounded by transliteration, semantics, colloquialisms, metaphoric nicknames and often of course all of these perpetuated by later writers where these terms become imbedded in the vocabulary.
A good example of this is the Indian dagger we now know as 'katar' which is actually termed 'jamadhar' in India. It was Egerton who accidentally transcribed the term in 1884 in his venerable work, where the term was used by other writers, and is now hopelessly imbedded as 'katar' in the language of collectors.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Both Mourice and Jim are right, and the discussion pops up now and again.
It seems to me, that we have discussed this before, although I seem to remember, that the discussion was on different sword blades with a tulwar hilt.
If anyone sees a tulwar hilt without a blade, no one will discuss that it is a tulwar hilt, so I will suggest that swords with a tulwar hilt, but with a different blade is called. A tulwar hilt with a Persian blade, a tulwar (with the Indian tulwar blade), a sukhela with a tulwar hilt and so on.
In this case it will be clear, what both the hilt and the blade looks like.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Both Mourice and Jim are right, and the discussion pops up now and again.
It seems to me, that we have discussed this before, although I seem to remember, that the discussion was on different sword blades with a tulwar hilt.
If anyone sees a tulwar hilt without a blade, no one will discuss that it is a tulwar hilt, so I will suggest that swords with a tulwar hilt, but with a different blade is called. A tulwar hilt with a Persian blade, a tulwar (with the Indian tulwar blade), a sukhela with a tulwar hilt and so on.
In this case it will be clear, what both the hilt and the blade looks like.

Well said Jens, it is about qualifying descriptively what the sword is, especially if the components test the boundaries of concise classification.

Using an analogy that always perplexed me in my younger years, if I had a 1950 Ford, but put a Chevy 350 engine in it.....then what do I call it? a Ford or a Chevy. If I need the engine worked on and tell them I have a '50 Ford, when they check for parts they need Chevrolet parts, not Ford, etc.
The dilemma is easily seen...I must specify the difference in what was once simply a 1950 Ford.

[Kubur]

It's what I was saying too about Ottoman swords and North African swords.
It's the hilt the ID of a sword.
Blades are traded or looted. To a certain extend the scabbard is interesting too.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim that's to easy. A Ford with a Chevy motor. You should have kept it, it would have been worth quite a lot of mone these days:-).

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

It's what I was saying too about Ottoman swords and North African swords.
It's the hilt the ID of a sword.
Blades are traded or looted. To a certain extend the scabbard is interesting too.

Good point Kubur, when extant, the scabbard of a sword can offer most interesting details about the swords last or most recent disposition. The scabbard in many cases, almost invariably with ethnographic weapons, is far less durable than the sword itself, and while swords (especially the blade as you note) often have long working lives, the scabbards usually do not.

With European or other military swords, a weapon which either has no scabbard or is with mismatched one, may often be found to be a 'battlefield pick up' as swords were dropped in combat while the individual was either a fatality or continued away, with scabbard still with him.

With ethnographic weapons, harsh conditions and deterioration of less than durable materials usually led to refurbishing of weapons often, particularly the scabbards. This was especially the case as weapons were handed down through generations or changed hands by one means or another.

Another good point about the Ottoman instance in use for classification. Such use of the broad description of an empire which endured for many centuries and covered many cultural spheres is infeasible for accurate classification or typology. These I would consider 'Imperialized' categories, such as 'Byzantine' and other 'empire' terms in such use, and even the term Mughal often falls short when trying to accurately describe many items, as their empire , though situated in India, broadly transcended geographic areas.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Jim that's to easy. A Ford with a Chevy motor. You should have kept it, it would have been worth quite a lot of mone these days:-).

Heck yeah!!!! I sure wish I still had it!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

These I would consider 'Imperialized' categories, such as 'Byzantine' and other 'empire' terms in such use, and even the term Mughal often falls short when trying to accurately describe many items, as their empire , though situated in India, broadly transcended geographic areas.

Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim,
I agree for the scabbard. The scabbard is an useful information to complete other observations. For the Ottomans, I think it's an useful term and the ethnic terms are not perfect either, for example the so-called Kurdish dagger means nothing. You have Iranian, Iraki, Syrian and Turkish Kurds...and their daggers are slightly different depending of the area...

Well noted Kubur, and the term Ottoman, for example, does denote certain stylistic characteristics and themes, and from that standpoint is useful, however for more specific classification purposes it is more so if properly qualified.
I recall quite some time ago for example in the case of the now properly classified laz bichagi, earlier in the century these were termed Kurdish-Armenian yataghans. Obviously these were not 'yataghans' by definition (and that is another troublesome term) but the term later adopted, 'Black Sea yataghan' was equally ineffective.
Though situated geographically in Ottoman territory, clearly these did not fall under the Ottoman style or conventions as they were obviously of ethnic groups outside that classification. The term 'Black Sea' was far too broad to effectively denote region or the ethnic character of the weapons.

Robert, please pardon the digression into classification terminology and the complexities of proper terms describing weapons. Your sword posted here is a great example for us to discuss this very topic, and I hope we can all learn more as we probe into various circumstances. This may also offer a better perspective on what your sword may best be classified.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Robert,
Here are some photos of my straight bladed Indian sword. The blade on mine is definitely not European and as yours looks like a very close relative I would suggest neither is yours. The hilt on mine was gilded at some point so not a munitions grade weapon. The hilt on yours is of a low quality as I'm sure you know but as has been said previously blades were rehilted as and when necessary so the hilt your blade now sports is not necessarily the one it started out with. I tried to look into this type of blade as much as the internet and the books I have would let me and I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this is a Sukhela primarily because of the straightness and flexibility of the blade rather than any other attribute. I also think that my blade and I suspect yours do have a bit of age, at least the early to middle 190thC if not a bit earlier. I think these are good blades, light and fast, and my example is one of my favourite pieces.
Regards,
Norman.

[Rick]

And submitting this example for the umpteenth time.
Very fine grained wootz; light and flexible.

[RobertGuy]

Wow, thank you all for your replies. A lot of information there. I guess that teminology can be a bit of a minefield in this area. Straight bladed tulwar , firangi (firanghi?) or Sukhela. This is facinating stuff, especially when fired up by a £40 sword.
Norman, your blade does look identical although mated to a nicer hilt.
Rick , I have tried to dupicate your picture with a little success. These really are nice blades.
I have tried to get a better closeup and include a picture taken with a USB microscope. I think the blade is mono steel but the pattination and pitting makes it difficult for me to tell as I have no experiance of wootz in the flesh as it were.

[Rick]

Def. the same blade characteristics.
From my experience these swords are uncommon.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Rick

Def. the same blade characteristics.
From my experience these swords are uncommon.

Yup and Yup

[RobertGuy]

I've been thinking about Wootz and have tried to get some better pictures. I buffed up a portion of the blade and applied ferric chloride etchant to the blade edge.. Here are closeups with different filters applied.There mis a structure to be seen but is it Wootz? I do not have the expertise to judge. What do you all think?

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by RobertGuy

I've been thinking about Wootz and have tried to get some better pictures. I buffed up a portion of the blade and applied ferric chloride etchant to the blade edge.. Here are closeups with different filters applied.There mis a structure to be seen but is it Wootz? I do not have the expertise to judge. What do you all think?

In order for etching to work, the surface must be first polished to grit 2000-3000. Then you may get some relevant result after etching.

However, I don't think there is any chance for your blade to be wootz as it doesn't even appear to be Indian.