Tulwar, help with dating and translation

GePi · 30th March 2016, 10:11 PM

Hello, first time poster here.
I recently acquired this tulwar from Matt Easton, and I would like your opinion on the age of the sword. The blade came partially cleaned and is polished bright under the dirt and rust.
It also has an inscription on the spine of the blade, and it would be great if someone could help me translating it.

Cheers

Gernot

ariel · 31st March 2016, 01:30 PM

Blade is (safely) 19th century.
But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

GePi · 31st March 2016, 08:44 PM

Thanks for the reply ariel, 19th century was my uneducated guess as well.

The fitting (?) of the resin seemed a bit crude to me too, but I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of hilt construction.

As for the clean part under the languets, I did not mention it, but Matt described the blade as completely black when he received it, and he has done quite a bit of cleaning. As you can see in the attached pictures, on the other side of the sword the rust also covers the area under the languet.

Cheers

Gernot

Jens Nordlunde · 1st April 2016, 02:23 PM

GePi,

Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you.

A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer.

It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu.

Jens Nordlunde · 1st April 2016, 02:28 PM

Here is a link to another inscription.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...on-translation

Ok I go with Ariel, the adhesive is far too much in compare to other tulwars, and more than need to be, so it it is likely that this is a newly marriage.
Although the text says Talpur, the hilt is not Talpur. Other hilt types could have been used in Sindh - but it is not typical.

GePi · 2nd April 2016, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

GePi,

Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you.

A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer.

It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu.

Wow, that's great. Thanks a lot. It seems, I have some reading up to do now.

Cheers

Jim McDougall · 3rd April 2016, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Blade is (safely) 19th century.
But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

Well observed Ariel!! and thank you for the excellent explanations that accompany your deductions, perfectly Holmes!!

Jim McDougall · 3rd April 2016, 07:47 PM

Hi Gernot,
Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar. As Ariel and Jens have observed, this does seem to be a composite, however that is far from being of concern with these weapons.
Actually that is quite a usual circumstance and I would note here that apparently 'gifting' of swords is a pretty standard practice in Talpur regions.

These Baluchi clans were well situated in the Sind territories in which the ruling houses (three), and according to narratives in the 1830s the Talpurs were most fond of fine swords, apparently with their age and fine steel and often embellished in inscriptions in gold. It would seem of course that these instances were with the courts and royal families and officials. While often the inscriptions were short prayers to Hazrut Ali for protection and aid, often also were inscriptions from the Koran or appropriate Persian couplets.

It is further noted that they were at times inscribed with the names of the owners or the name of those who were to receive these swords as gifts.

There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this.

It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century.
As Jens has well noted, though the hilt is not necessarily Talpur or of these regions, it is known that similar forms were sometimes among the often wide variation of hilts, often coming from regions to the south.

ariel · 4th April 2016, 02:04 AM

I recall Fernando's story about his meeting with Rainer Daehnhardt, the famous Portugese collector and author. The latter told Fernando about his meeting with North Indian Raja, who informed him that in the past blades and handles were stored in separate arsenals and re-united when there were rumors of war, and even offered to show him those separate buildings.

We still see tulwars with obviously replaced handles ( not recent replacement but unquestionably old).

Thus, in and of itself, replaced handle is not a disqualifying feature.

What unnerves me with this tulwar is a pretty good set of hints that the handle might have been replaced very recently.

Whether it decreases the value of the renovated tulwar ( taking into account the commonality of the process) I am not sure and would like to learn opinions of Forumites.

Jim McDougall · 4th April 2016, 06:55 AM

From the Hayes (1971) article noted:

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 4th April 2016, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

From the Hayes (1971) article noted:

Salaams Jim, Thank you for the fine article in itself a great research document and as I was looking at Sir Richard Burton I noted Sindh Revisited:
A Journey in the Footsteps of Captain Sir ...1842 -1849

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th April 2016, 03:16 PM

Interesting article Jim, thank you for showing it.

GePi,
The words Sind and Talpur have been mentioned several times, also in connection with your tulwar. However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.

Roland_M · 4th April 2016, 03:46 PM

Hi Gernot,

it is unclear to see, but maybe the tulwar was opened and nickel- or chrome plated. The last picture from your first post makes me think so.

This could be the explanation for the wasteful usage of adhesive.

Roland

GePi · 4th April 2016, 06:13 PM

That's a lot of great information you guys are providing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Gernot,
Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar.
There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this.

It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century.

Thanks your for the welcome and for posting that very interesting article, Jim.
I wonder if it is possible to track down this specific owner. Google searching the latin transliteration of his name has yielded no results unsurprisingly.
Concerning the shape of the blade I was wondering if it could be an import, perhaps turkish, though it doesn't have the little "step"(?) that seperates the yelman from the rest of the blade on the kilij blades that I have seen. Although I'm a novice, I have looked at quite a few pictures of antique tulwars, and I have not seen this particular kind of blade shape with a tulwar hilt, or any other hilt to be honest, before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.

Ah, is this hilt style attributed to this particular dynasty or rather the general region?
The sword that pictured right above has a hilt with a shape very similar to the one on my sword though, perhaps traded in or gifted, as Jim mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland_M

it is unclear to see, but maybe the tulwar was opened and nickel- or chrome plated. The last picture from your first post makes me think so.

This could be the explanation for the wasteful usage of adhesive.

Hi, Roland,

yes, that could explain why it is still mostly bright and shiny under the dirt.
Is there a way to verfiy that?
Curious that it seems to have been neglected so badly afterwards.

Thanks all, you've been of great help already.

Jim McDougall · 4th April 2016, 06:18 PM

As Jens has well noted, it is very hard to apply a distinct hilt pattern to Talpur use, just as with Sikhs, Rajputs etc. and particularly by region.
The images in the article illustrate some of the spectrum of hilt types which were apparently associated in these cases.

Here I would note that in a number of cases I have seen there are tulwars with this knuckleguard hilt which MAY have been attributed to Talpur use through association with this very article.
This is the kind of broad assumption which can often occur with simple example/image association from references and articles without further corroboration.

In my opinion, the 'open' hilt (without guard) seems more likely (as Jens has noted) for the Talpur use in this context, as I personally regard the open hilt as more of a 'court' or dress sword, which would seem more in place with these apparent presentation blades.

In this example discussed, as Ariel observed, the application of the material securing the blade is not consistent with methods of most earlier joinings, and I am inclined to agree this is a more modern instance
I recall the anecdote as well about hilts and blades being stored in separate locations to deter the acquisition of whole weapons in insurgences, but think personally it has more to do with arsenals use of imported hilts in refurbishing blades. This is the very reason it is so difficult to establish regionality in tulwar forms.

Ibrahiim, excellent book on Sir Richard Burton you note!!! and most pertinent in the case of this sword for further research.

Gernot, whatever the case may be with the present mounts on this sword, the blade on this sword is remarkably connected to the Talpurs, and the article and book Ibrahiim has noted would be excellent sources for your continued research.
Thank you again for sharing it here!!!

Jens Nordlunde · 4th April 2016, 10:45 PM

The Talpur family were known for collecting blades of a very high quality - and I dont think that this blade belongs to this catogary.
So inscription or not, I dont think this blade can have been part of the Talpur armoury. A later inscription - maybe - to give the sword more value -who knows.

GePi · 5th April 2016, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Jim, Thank you for the fine article in itself a great research document and as I was looking at Sir Richard Burton I noted Sindh Revisited: A Journey in the Footsteps of Captain Sir ...1842 -1849.

Hello Ibrahiim,
I have overlooked you post before, thank you for the book hint, I already nabbed a cheap copy and can't wait to dig into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The Talpur family were known for collecting blades of a very high quality - and I dont think that this blade belongs to this catogary.
So inscription or not, I dont think this blade can have been part of the Talpur armoury. A later inscription - maybe - to give the sword more value -who knows.

Yes, this sword strikes me as more a fighting sword, and although I like the hilt, wherever it originally belongs, the koftgari is not of the highest quality compared to a lot of other examples I have seen so far.
And of course you can never discount the possibility of later added "upgrades" to a sword blade, but as you said, who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Gernot, whatever the case may be with the present mounts on this sword, the blade on this sword is remarkably connected to the Talpurs, and the article and book Ibrahiim has noted would be excellent sources for your continued research.
Thank you again for sharing it here!!!

You're welcome. When I bought the sword, I just picked it up for aesthetic reasons and didn't expect it to be historically significant at all, so whatever the authenticity of its parts or assembly are, I'm very happy with it.

One question, is there a way to quote multiple posts without a lot of copy-pasting? If there is, I cannot find it.

Cheers.

30th March 2016, 10:11 PM	#1
GePi Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Germany Posts: 95	Tulwar, help with dating and translation Hello, first time poster here. I recently acquired this tulwar from Matt Easton, and I would like your opinion on the age of the sword. The blade came partially cleaned and is polished bright under the dirt and rust. It also has an inscription on the spine of the blade, and it would be great if someone could help me translating it. Cheers Gernot Attached Images

31st March 2016, 08:44 PM	#3
GePi Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Germany Posts: 95	Thanks for the reply ariel, 19th century was my uneducated guess as well. The fitting (?) of the resin seemed a bit crude to me too, but I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of hilt construction. As for the clean part under the languets, I did not mention it, but Matt described the blade as completely black when he received it, and he has done quite a bit of cleaning. As you can see in the attached pictures, on the other side of the sword the rust also covers the area under the languet. Cheers Gernot Attached Images

1st April 2016, 02:23 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	GePi, Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you. A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer. It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 1st April 2016 at 10:44 PM.

1st April 2016, 02:28 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Here is a link to another inscription. http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...on-translation Ok I go with Ariel, the adhesive is far too much in compare to other tulwars, and more than need to be, so it it is likely that this is a newly marriage. Although the text says Talpur, the hilt is not Talpur. Other hilt types could have been used in Sindh - but it is not typical. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 1st April 2016 at 10:50 PM.

4th April 2016, 06:55 AM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	From the Hayes (1971) article noted: Attached Images

31st March 2016, 01:30 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Blade is (safely) 19th century. But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

3rd April 2016, 07:47 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	Hi Gernot, Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar. As Ariel and Jens have observed, this does seem to be a composite, however that is far from being of concern with these weapons. Actually that is quite a usual circumstance and I would note here that apparently 'gifting' of swords is a pretty standard practice in Talpur regions. These Baluchi clans were well situated in the Sind territories in which the ruling houses (three), and according to narratives in the 1830s the Talpurs were most fond of fine swords, apparently with their age and fine steel and often embellished in inscriptions in gold. It would seem of course that these instances were with the courts and royal families and officials. While often the inscriptions were short prayers to Hazrut Ali for protection and aid, often also were inscriptions from the Koran or appropriate Persian couplets. It is further noted that they were at times inscribed with the names of the owners or the name of those who were to receive these swords as gifts. There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this. It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century. As Jens has well noted, though the hilt is not necessarily Talpur or of these regions, it is known that similar forms were sometimes among the often wide variation of hilts, often coming from regions to the south.

4th April 2016, 02:04 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I recall Fernando's story about his meeting with Rainer Daehnhardt, the famous Portugese collector and author. The latter told Fernando about his meeting with North Indian Raja, who informed him that in the past blades and handles were stored in separate arsenals and re-united when there were rumors of war, and even offered to show him those separate buildings. We still see tulwars with obviously replaced handles ( not recent replacement but unquestionably old). Thus, in and of itself, replaced handle is not a disqualifying feature. What unnerves me with this tulwar is a pretty good set of hints that the handle might have been replaced very recently. Whether it decreases the value of the renovated tulwar ( taking into account the commonality of the process) I am not sure and would like to learn opinions of Forumites.

4th April 2016, 03:16 PM	#12
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Interesting article Jim, thank you for showing it. GePi, The words Sind and Talpur have been mentioned several times, also in connection with your tulwar. However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.

4th April 2016, 03:46 PM	#13
Roland_M Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Germany Posts: 525	Hi Gernot, it is unclear to see, but maybe the tulwar was opened and nickel- or chrome plated. The last picture from your first post makes me think so. This could be the explanation for the wasteful usage of adhesive. Roland

4th April 2016, 06:18 PM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	As Jens has well noted, it is very hard to apply a distinct hilt pattern to Talpur use, just as with Sikhs, Rajputs etc. and particularly by region. The images in the article illustrate some of the spectrum of hilt types which were apparently associated in these cases. Here I would note that in a number of cases I have seen there are tulwars with this knuckleguard hilt which MAY have been attributed to Talpur use through association with this very article. This is the kind of broad assumption which can often occur with simple example/image association from references and articles without further corroboration. In my opinion, the 'open' hilt (without guard) seems more likely (as Jens has noted) for the Talpur use in this context, as I personally regard the open hilt as more of a 'court' or dress sword, which would seem more in place with these apparent presentation blades. In this example discussed, as Ariel observed, the application of the material securing the blade is not consistent with methods of most earlier joinings, and I am inclined to agree this is a more modern instance I recall the anecdote as well about hilts and blades being stored in separate locations to deter the acquisition of whole weapons in insurgences, but think personally it has more to do with arsenals use of imported hilts in refurbishing blades. This is the very reason it is so difficult to establish regionality in tulwar forms. Ibrahiim, excellent book on Sir Richard Burton you note!!! and most pertinent in the case of this sword for further research. Gernot, whatever the case may be with the present mounts on this sword, the blade on this sword is remarkably connected to the Talpurs, and the article and book Ibrahiim has noted would be excellent sources for your continued research. Thank you again for sharing it here!!!

4th April 2016, 10:45 PM	#16
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	The Talpur family were known for collecting blades of a very high quality - and I dont think that this blade belongs to this catogary. So inscription or not, I dont think this blade can have been part of the Talpur armoury. A later inscription - maybe - to give the sword more value -who knows.