Tulwar silver decoration style

[Andy Davis]

Hello all
Been a while since I had anything new and then it all turns up. Traded for these three tulwars, all with silver decoration and would like to know any opinions on age and region by their style.
Cheers
Andy

[spiral]

What do the blades look like?

Spiral

[Andy Davis]

I hadnt botherd with these, as the blades arent always a good guide to the hilt, what with re-mounting etc
But as you ask, in the same order as the hilts.

[spiral]

Thankyou.

Very true, but I always figure the blade is the main & critical part , Its usualy the handles that come & go.

But others may see it differently.

I know nothing about them historicaly but I like blade one a lot. A great curve with well done fullers . very artistic.

I always think classic style is a good clue to value.

Thanks for sharing.

Spiral

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by spiral

T I always figure the blade is the main & critical part ,
Spiral

Absolutely agree with you. The blade is the Soul of the sword. The dress is minor.

[Andy Davis]

I tend to agree up to a point and finding a good quality blade on a Indian weapon seems to be harder than a good hilt but I guess blades are the working part and thats where more damage and replacement occures.
In daggers especially though, its where a lot more of the craftsmanship goes in decoration (especially if you consider the hardstone, crystal and gem encrusted types) and its far more likely to find imported blades than imported hilts, so I would guess the hilt is a better guide to its place of use and requirement.

[ariel]

It is an interesting discussion: blade vs. handle.
Many would agree with you on the primacy of the blade. This may be true for the actual cutting and many authors stress the blade as the main identifier of the origin of the sword.
Polish authors have somewhat different perspective: they say that it is the handle that gives the national character to the sword and it is the handle that determines the fencing technique (must be very different between , say, guardless shashka and Polish Hussar sword with a thumb ring). Blades break and are replaced but the handles were often considered the "soul of the sword" (kind of "my Grandfather's hand held it"). I read that in India blades were considered replaceable but that every effort was directed at keeping the handle and "feeding" it with new blades. Perhaps, that was the reason why...
This is not to say that one excludes the other, but the order of examination and attribution of a particular sword goes " blade- handle" in one tradition and "handle-blade" in another. Superficially it makes no difference, but in reality it does: the relative weight of evidence is tilted and one can, for example, attribute a sword with a typical Ottoman Kilij blade but a Persian handle to Persian manufacture/tradition rather than the other way. Indeed, a sword with a recurved blade and eared, guardless handle is an Ottoman Yataghan, but the same blade with a "Tulwar" handle is an Islamic Sailaba and with a "Khanda" handle is an Indian Sossun Pata.
What's your opinion?

[RSWORD]

I am of the opinion that overall in many cultures there are more heirloom blades than heirloom handles. For the Viking, the blade was what songs were written about. In Japan, the blade was revered. In Persia, a fabulous wootz blade would have been passed father to son. I have seen very old kilij blades in much later mounts speaking to their longevity as a serviceable weapon. I think the same can be said of keris blades although you do see more heirloom handles than anywhere else. Identity is another question. One may be better able to identify a group by the handle but in most cases it is the blade that is passed down through the generations.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, your mail is very interesting, something I have thought of now and again, but I don’t think it is as easy to solve, as it seems to be.

A sword with an Indian hilt, will by most, be called a tulwar. Some who would want to be more precise, would call it a tulwar with an Indian blade, or a tulwar with a shamshir blade – so far I don’t see any problems, but when you see a tulwar hilt with a yataghan blade, it is not a tulwar any more, the hilt does not ‘decide’ any more. Then it is the blade, which ‘decides’ what it is called, the same goes for a kirach and for other types.

It is true that some of the better hilts have survived more than on blade, but sometimes you can see very old blades with newer hilts – as if the owner wanted to follow the fashion, but still wanted to keep the blade his ‘Grandfather’ used. It is difficult to say why this is, but one of the reasons could be, be course a blade had been used much, and therefore been grinded too much to be useful, so it went back into the furnace to be reused, but the hilt being an expensive one, of good quality, was still looking fine, and as quality hilts were expensive – it was used again. It could also be, ‘it has been in the family for many years’ or it could be due to the economy buying a new quality hilt.

I understand they have similar problems in other countries, but there as well as with Indian weapons I doubt we will find a solution, as the different names have been used for far too long to change them now.

[ariel]

Jens,
You are absolutely right: the handle/blade question is somewhat akin to the chicken/egg dilemma.
Where it is important, I think, is in the attribution of the locality to a weapon.
Your own avatar shows a Khandjarli: a very, very Indian dagger.
But change the handle, and it will become a Kurdish Jambiya, a Marsh Arab Jambiya, a Persian one and so on.
We identify Piso Podangs by the handle, no matter what kind of blade is attached to it.
Under no circumstance do I intend to downgrade the role of a blade (that would be plain silly), but I more and more agree with the Polish point of view that it is the handle that defines the national origin of the sword. Handles are based on local decorating traditions, whereas a lot of blades were trade blades. They were brought in and fitted by local masters into locally-produced ( often individually-ordered) handles modeled according to local esthetic customs. So, for me the crux of the issue is not whether we call a particular sword shamshir or tulwar; it is where do we think this particular sword came from. Having decided that, we can assign to it its proper local name.

[Tim Simmons]

I would agree with ariel, as a collector I see it this way. No one wants a nasty, ugly, damaged or wildly unsuitable blade for its intended purpose be it fighting or parade. But to me the blade is often the minor part of the whole picture. As mentioned the handle helping identifying the location and possible people that may have used the blade, the scabbard even more so. To me a fine sword without a scabbard is less than a simple piece that can tell the whole story.

[spiral]

mmmm lots of intresting points to ponder, & I agree blades are damaged doing what they were made to do. {& by rust etc.} But many non tulwar metal handles are also destroyed by time & enviroment. wood, horn bone & ivory check,split, warp, decay or are eaten by worms & beetles & then need to be replaced. Stone & crystal crack or shatter when dropped.

Ive only had 6 or 7 tulwar & only 2 of those had damaged handles.

But for me the blade is the heart of it, that is what makes it a weapon. Perhaps I should collect ninhonto?

I do love a good & complimentry handle though.

The handle on its own even when fantasticaly artistic & well made is still just a handle, although as some of you say its very true that the handle style can be a great identifyer to origin.

But I think realy both blade & handle always need to be appraised & described, not just one piece or another.

To do anything else would only be half the picture, I thik?

I like the Gestalt approach myself in appraisel. {& indeed in most things.}

Spiral