Unlike other regions India was slow into the business of faking age on weapons. Like all weapons it is far better to have the thing in your hands in assessing real or not. I have to say, however, that looking at the wear, rust and patina in these pictures that this looks like mid 19th century or earlier... It is naturally worn... I see no sharp edges and the overall smooth, even wear seems to me quite original. I can imagine that when it was newer the pearl or steel ball inserts would travel up and down the slots but that fair wear and tear has rendered the grooves unusable ... The Chinese were making this style in the 17thn C and it is suggested that it was something they copied from India and Persia. Certainly there are plenty of examples from those regions. Great discussion ...Thanks.

Please see http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html

I place a Mughal dagger from a finished auction below...Quote" A Mughal kard with the 'Tears of the Wounded'
18th century
The 11 1/2 inch single edged wootz blade of substantial weight and showing a fine ladder pattern; offset slots inlet on either side inserted with fresh water pearls, the Tears of the Wounded. Fluted spine chiseled with a scroll work panel at the base. Integral bolster inlaid in gold, the peony meander pattern reserved in steel. One-piece water buffalo horn grip with flat silver-plated pommel cap set with a grooved red coral cabochon in the Ottoman style.
Condition: Blade showing a strong watered pattern with series of scratches. Grip probably replaced during period of use". Unquote.

As Ibrahiim points out, all edges of the grooves appear rounded like after long wear... yet you have the inlays in pretty good condition...

Well... not really... so don't mind this last comment. Just a thought that crossed my mind.

I don't see any problem disagreeing here ...so I do... The inlays are pretty ropy typically, after time ...and I see no dodgy aspect on this weapon at all... Its not easy spotting fakes as many museums have found out... but in my view this is a genuine article not played with and dating to at least the mid 19th C... probably earlier....and actually supported in its earlier potential provenance by the inlay which shows a lot of life... :shrug:

Marius,

Many old Afghan blades have grooves exactly like that.
I am at work now, but will check my collection.

Grooves like that were cut with very hard chisels all over the world. The round mark at the beginning of the groove is just a convenient starting point. I agree that the steadiness of hand was not exemplary, but we are not talking Assadullah here, this is a creation of a simple Afghani blacksmith making simple Afghani swords for simple Afghani slashing. Not exquisite, but perfectly sufficient for butchering a feringhi:-)) Thus, there is no doubt in my mind that Eric is absolutely correct: it is a genuinely old blade, 19 century at the latest.


Of course, leather might be newer: scabbards did not survive very long in the field, Russian army regulations specified exchange of scabbards every 3 years. Professional fakers from India and Georgia routinely present artificially-aged leather scabbards: they do not look 1% as convincing as this one. While it is possible to fake the mastique, I certainly would like to know how to do it: it looks awfully old.

My bottom line: 100% genuine, 100% old.

Your arguments appear to hold well, and I trust you guys are more experienced than me (it would be hard not to).

However, you have seen my arguments and explanations from the mechanical point of view. And unless I have another good explanation on how those grooves were made, I will still be convinced it is a recent fake. :cool:

The argument there are many blades with grooves like this is not very valid as
1. maybe there aren't that many
2. maybe all that are, are fakes.

Indians started faking weapons since 19th century.

Anyhow it would be quite boring if we all agree... right?! ;)

I have a few pictures to compare with the #1 sword...The two swords at the top can be seen sold on https://new.liveauctioneers.com/item...-afghan-swords


In respect of the lower pictures against a black backdrop ~The webpage says at http://honoomasamune.tumblr.com/

Quote" Pulouar Sword

Dated: circa 1676 - 1725
Culture: Indian/Afghan
Medium: steel, gold
Measurements: overall length 97 cm; blade length 83 cm

The Pulouar is an Afghan sword, also used in India, a variant of the Tulwar. It always displays a short guard, curved in the direction of the blade, and a hemispheric pommel without a counter guard. This piece displays a blade in watered steel, curved and with a slight wave in its double edge.

Near the hilt a golden cartouche is desplayed with the following inscription: “Akbar Sha al-Sultan Mirza”. The hilt, also in steel, displays a spherical pommel completely covered in an engraved web motif and geometrical patterns. The hand guard features a delicate swan head on the pommel, also engraved, an inscription with the “Ali”, followed by the sentence “nasr min Allah wa il-fath qrabi.”Unquote.

Thank you very much... again for the photos!
Mine is definitely much younger. Maybe 19th century...

Ibrahiim al Balooshi, thank you for the link to the Caravana collection. I have yet to explore it in any depth, but even a cursory scan is enough to appreciate its value. Breathtaking stuff, the existence of which amazes and confounds.

Much appreciated.

Here is one of my pulouars.
The other one is wootz, but the blade is flat, with no grooves.

Outstanding comments and discussion!
On the 'tears of the wounded' and other descriptions of these blade channels holding bearings, it seems generally held that these were typically 'court or parade' weapons. I have seen references suggesting that these channels would likely compromise the blade in combat situations, though I am sure that might be contested.
The term 'pearls' is figurative as these are typically metal bearings.

It is great to see these examples of 'paluoar' in their original rugged condition, which to me truly holds the intrinsic frontier character of the regions from which they come.

While it is tempting to consider the often crude nature of some of the components and blades of many of these swords as 'fakery', it must be remembered that frontier armourers often used whatever items and skills however limited, to create arms for tribal use.

While it seems these were indeed originating from some time in the 18th century, the scabbard with the asymmetrical carry rings (one on scabbard front) is similar to the latter 19th century Anglo-Afghan military swords.
The parabolic Persian type shamshir blade on the example Ariel shows reflects the profound preference toward many Persian arms in these regions.

I remember a treatise on the origins of the Afghani " regulation khyber", where this and similar examples were presented as the very last step in the purported "evolution" and attributed to the very last years of the 19th century, the ultimate achievement of the Mashin Khana that was established in 1887. Ironically, the very same communication showed a photograph of a gentleman named Mohammed Yakub Khan dated 1879 carrying a similar sword. Thus, the supposedly final evolutionary step was in fact the earliest one

Darwin would have had a fit:-)))

Ariel, this is very close to the one I posted, the same type of radical curve and the cut grooves, thanks to posting it.

Undoubtedly chiseled by hand.

They are straight (more or less) albeit irregular and crudely made. They definitely don't have the curves with very short curvature radius and the drilled holes at the beginning of the groove. Nor they display the obvious variation in depth.

Completely different stuff than the grooves in question. The grooves are not remotely close.

Obviously I know the treatise. Actually I have one of these Anglo-Afghan military swords, which has the familiar Mazir I Sharif (Mashin Khana) stamp and is dated 1893. It seems the date range of examples of these are in 1890s, and these were used even later.

I recall finding the image of Mohammed Yakub Khan in the book "Northwest Frontier" by Swinson many years ago, and indeed he is wearing a sword with remarkably similar hilt.

The paper sought to discover, much as I had, to find the origin of these distinctly European military styled hilts, and that date seemed to place the earliest, though the Mashin Khana examples seem not to occur until later than the 1879 date. So where did that hilt which is in the 1879 photo come from? and why did it not appear in production until advent of that Kabul armoury?

It seems that tribal 'Khybers' (salwars) occurred in the interim between 1879 and the noted inception of the Mashin Khana factory with these hilts, but likely quite near it as many of them have the stamp known used by it. At this time, the heavy channeled military type blades began being placed on these. It is believed these 'military' hilted Khybers were probably for some of the tribal levy's in British service in these times.

An interesting aside to looking more into the equally and often misperceived paluoars . I guess we here are sort of Darwinian sword whisperers:)

Different sword smiths using different designs and techniques, both similar, you just do not see may pulwars that look like these ones, I am sure there are more out there.

To magnify and examine The Ethnographic I saw some early photos; Illustrating Afghan swords...The sketch shows some Baluch and Afghan irregulars... armed.... with everything!

Below this the largest/longest photo stars Yakub Khan at the centre with the description below. (The smaller photo of one of his officers is included separately to view better the sword.) For interest The small black and white picture shows the camp at Safed Sang.


Quote from....https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...s_officers.jpg

Group. The Amir Yakub Khan & sirdars of Kabul [At Safed Sang].

Photograph featuring Yakub Khan, the Amir of Afghanistan, seated in the centre, and his officers, taken in May 1879 by John Burke at Safed Sang in Afghanistan. The six foot tall Daoud Shah, from the Ghilzai tribe, his commander-in-chief, sits at the Amir's right. To the Amir's left is Habibullah Khan, the moustafi or prime minister. Burke accompanied British forces into Afghanistan in 1878 and covered the events of the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-80), becoming the first significant photographer of the country and its people in the process. The British, having defeated the Amir Sher Ali's forces, wintered in Jalalabad, waiting for the new Amir Yakub Khan to accept their terms and conditions. One of the key figures in the negotiations was the military administrator Pierre Louis Napoleon Cavagnari (1841-1879), a half-Irish, half-Italian aristocrat who was appointed as emissary by the Viceroy Lord Lytton.

In May 1879, Yakub Khan travelled to Gandamak, a village just outside Jalalabad and entered into negotiations with Cavagnari as a result of which the Treaty of Gandamak was signed whereby the Amir ceded territories to the British and accepted a British envoy in Kabul. Cavagnari took up the post of British Resident in Kabul in July 1879. He was known to be reckless and arrogant rather than discreet and his role as envoy was viewed as injudicious even by some of the British.

The situation in Kabul was tense and eventually some Afghan troops who had not been paid by the Amir rebelled and attacked the Residency, killing Cavagnari and his mission in September 1879. The war was far from over despite the treaty and British troops were recalled over the mountains to occupy Kabul, secure it and launch punitive action against the Afghans.

Yakub Khan abdicated, taking refuge in the British camp and was subsequently sent to India in December."Unquote.

I advise you to read the article again. Sword Yakub Khan - it's not "regulation Khyber knife".

My apologies, my notes on the photo I referred to were incorrect.
What I meant was the photo by John Burke at the signing if the Treaty of Gandamak, 26 May, 1879.
King Mohammed Yaqub Khan seated at center, on his left is Daoud Shah, his commander in chief......and my notation was to the distinct style of his hilt with the open parallel bar knuckleguard, recurved terminal at top.

It is thought that this hilt was possibly a prototype for the military style hilts which were to be produced at the Mashin Khana at Kabul in the early 1890s.
As seen in other photos, this style hilt is also to be found on the traditional Khyber blades, often with the 'Mazir I Sharif' stamp of Mashin Khana.
The heavily channeled European style blade (also pictured) became the more regularly produced model into turn of the century. Later many of the hilts were in brass, but with this distinctive 'bayonet style' hilt.

It seems that these Khyber bladed examples with military style hilts as pictured, may have been for some of the tribal levy's using traditional blades but with these Anglo-Afghan hilts.

The styling of the slotted knuckle guard seems to correspond to some styling on a number of paluoars as well as tulwars from these regions in the Northwest Frontier into Afghanistan.

The theme of the paper discussed the integration of the traditional blades and military style hilts as well as seeking the origins of the design, with the example of similar style in the sword of Daoud Shah in 1879 representing earliest known placement of its form. As I understood the title noting 'regulation Khyber' referred to the development of these military Afghan swords as well as their use with traditional Khyber blades in the tribal contingents .

This is true Jim: Afghanis were trying to mass produce their traditional Khybers at the Mashin Khana and to give them some European look( D guard). The upper one you have shown is an example. At the same time the mass-produced ones started using cheap materiel, - wood, - for the handles and got rid of any artistic elements present at the older handmade one. In a way, it was similar to what happened with Caucasian shashkas: the Russians appropriated it as their regulation weapon and modified it to the point of converting a beautiful native weapon into pretty ugly European-looking saber without the handguard ( the only homage to the original Caucasian inspiration in addition to the imitation of an eared pommel).

But the last one you have shown that was also carried by Yakub Khan has nothing to do with the Khyber: both the handle and the blade are European, and the blades on different examples were of a variety of patterns, none of which had anything to do with the original Khybers. The Yakub Khan's one was in existence well before the establishment of Mashin Khan. Those were just colonial models.

There was no evolution of Khybers : just a short-lived and unsuccessful attempt at mass production. And the purported "final step" of the presumed evolutionary process had nothing to do with the original model. As they say: true, true and unrelated.

This is called - look but do not see.

I have to repeat again, Yakub Khan sword is different from the regulation Khyber knife. And I wrote about it in the article:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber

"Evolution" regulation Khyber knife is not only to acquire the shackle guard.

But numismatists - can not understand ...

Well, I just have to draw attention of any interested Forumite to :


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber

Posts ##11 and 12.


In the first one, the author shows 3 Afghani swords, from a mass-produced industrial copy of a real native khyber, with a typical blade and slightly modified handle down to the one with a typical British colonial handle and a European ( or, at the very least, Europe inspired) blade. The author then presents these models as " transitional steps in the evolution of the Khyber from Ethnic to the Regulation"

In the next post, the same author proposes to re-name " the Afghan Military Sword to Afghan Military (or Regulation) Khyber".

I think the message of the treatise was perfectly clear and unequivocal. The author was, indeed, within his rights to propose this classification. This does not mean that others have no right to question his conclusions.

I would submit that we are talking about 2 different items: attempted industrial modification of the native Afghani Khyber on the one hand and an unrelated short sword of a European pattern. The only thing that somehow may put them in the same box is the fact that all of them are short-bladed sidearms.


I am also slightly confused about the "numismatics" remark: does the author have any coins to bolster his conclusions? I'd love to see them.

Its always good to revisit old threads often even years later, as our knowledge base and ongoing research often offers new perspectives.
This is especially the case with knowledgeable and specialized writers such as Ariel and Mahratt, and I can only present my own understandings of the article and these weapons.

From what I learned, the sword worn by Daoud Shah in the 1879 photo was key in looking into the potential development of the Afghan 'regulation' short sword of the 1890s into around 1900+. Actually the only suggestion of regulation propriety was made by Oriental Arms at some point years ago and now notes misplaced.

What was significant was the appearance of the hilt on his sword which had slotted guard and rolled back terminal near pommel. Since this was 1879, and he certainly had the sword for a nominal period prior, we wonder if this suggested a larger presence of these type hilts pre Mashin Khana. While that state arsenal began in Kabul in 1887, tooling and production began in the early 1890s. My example of one of the 'regulation short swords' is dated 1893 if I recall.

The Dauod Shah sword seems to have a solid grip hilt, unlike the Mashin Khana examples which are admittedly workmanlike and austere. I would submit here that the primary arms production of the Mashin Khana was fireams, specifically current issue Enfields, and note the compelling appearance of these 'regulation' hilts to that of 'sword' bayonets.

The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife.
The text of the article addresses this comparatively, but does not mean to suggest that the tribal form of Khyber ('silawar') was 'regulation' BUT that it was contemporary to the production military type short swords which ostensibly were.

The example of the 'colonial' hilt worn by Daoud Shah was the key instance in the search for the development of this hilt form, which was indeed European IN FORM but clearly was produced in Afghan or local regions.

I could find no evidence of this kind of military hilt in either British production sources (including Enfield who indeed did import in degree from Solingen) nor the German sources.

I think the 'nusimatic' reference had to do with study on the Mazir i Sharif or Royal state stamp or device, which was keyed on the coins of the time. The presence of these stamps on both 'regulation' military form swords as well as on examples of the tribal Khybers with military hilts, was instrumental in establishing probable dates for examples in this study.

The term 'Khyber' was used mostly as an implied vernacular term for the military type short swords in tandem with the concurrently used tribal versions with the same hilt.

There is no known existing 'regulation ' for the military type Mashin Khana short sword, any more than any established for the use of the term 'Khyber' for the tribal swords which are actually known locally as 'siliwars'.
Further they are not KNIVES nor YATAGHANS!

Therefore the study aims to show more of a colloquially termed pairing of these edged weapons in their Afghan context of the times.

Exactly my point. The article was carefully researched and the description of the actual objects was exemplary. However, it was based on a wrong premise, tried to forcibly prove an incorrect hypothesis and inevitably reached a wrong conclusion.
There was no evolution. It was not even parallel development ( if by that we mean independent creation of virtually identical constructions). We are talking about 2 different short sidearms present in Afghanistan at the same time period.

The variety of Afghani short sabers was very wide: the blades, the handles, the manner of carrying.
They were no more "regulation" than khybers of different varieties, and the name of those was legion:-)

Thank you for the additional images Ariel.

I would like to note that I personally feel responsible in the case of the titling and premise of this article. Actually I participated in editing and constructing the text of the original article which was written by Mahratt, at his request as he was concerned with semantics and language issues.
As I had researched these swords many years before, I should have been able to suggest revisions in the overall premise and text, but being impressed with the volume and character of his research and work inadvertently did not.

In all, as noted previously, the Khyber short swords were not regulation in the true sense, simply notable present in consistency in military context.
The traditional Khyber was interpolated in the mix, with the expected array of variations in all of these in a colonial setting.

The article in and of itself, still carries an impressive insight into the Anglicization of Afghan edged weapons of these times, and the use of the royal arsenal stamp and Mashin Khana factory.

Here, I would suggest we leave the Khyber sword and knife aspects and return to the paluoar as in the original post.
This deviation in the discussion does serve as interesting perspective with associations to the paluoar as these weapons were all contemporary and truly offers certain dimension to the times and place where these were used.

Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !! :shrug:

Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Jim,
I also feel in part responsible: at Mahratt's request I translated this essay into English. I also did not provide my comments about its fatal logical error. Sorry.
There is a lesson for both of us: if we are asked to assist in any way to a young and academically-inexperienced Forumite, we should not be shy to offer constructive critique. The same applies to all our comments: it is not productive just to applaud politely but insincerely: the whole purpose of intellectual exchange is in perfecting a worthy message and rejecting wrong conclusions.
Learning is possible only if a learner is willing to listen to critique and accept it. It would be nice to learn from somebody else's mistakes , but realistically it is our own ones that give us real knowledge and understanding. Some people do not take well to criticism ( no matter how polite and constructive it might be), and those, IMHO, are hopeless.

But back to the Pulouars ( dang, what is the right way to spell this word?:-))))

Here is my other one: brass-inlaid handle, groove-less blade with no Indian ricasso, but with wootz and unusual scabbard stitching: teeny-tiny nails.

Ibrahiim,
Interesting observation. If this is correct, it might help in pinpointing " pseudoshashkas" to North India/Afghanistan and date them around the same time, ie second half of 19th century.
The only problem that there are plenty of purely Indian tulwars with a very similar feature.

:)

I agree... I ought to add a caveat that the Afghan swords at #64 and the Pulouir style had knuckle guards of a similar type at the top near the Pommel finished in a sort of Goose Neck finial. The project swords have similar finials... It seems the Tulvar and Pulouir are very similar so it may not be surprising that they have similar finials also...This birdhead is certainly sophisticated and mirrors what we learn of Jehangir who personally designed many of these himself.

I should add this ... Please see https://books.google.com.om/books?id...0hilts&f=false where it is clear that Ottoman hilts copied Mughal form on swords and daggers.

Ariel,
I was not aware of that, and thank you for acknowledging your part in this situation. I would agree that we indeed should be cautious in our involvement assistance with these kinds of matters, but I would not consider Mahratt inexperienced academically or otherwise. He compiled some impressive data and research to include in the article. It was more a matter of language and syntax in the construction of the article, and it seems these kinds of misalignments are often the crux of misunderstandings.
Ironically, if it were simply a case of academic experience I would be immediately disqualified, as I have entirely zero academic experience past my high school diploma. That said, the volume of knowledge and general experience I have achieved has been through the patience and generosity of so many others in these fields who stood as mentors and friends in working with me through many years.

I think it is good that we can clarify some of these aspects of these interesting edged weapons which are in the spectrum of Afghan arms.
I agree, let us continue.......and further, I have no idea of the correct spelling of paluoar(?) :) but ?

Ibrahiim, indeed astutely observed on the gooseneck style of the guard, which is tempting in qualifying certain Afghan weapons. This feature, is well known on paluoars, these 'military hilts' and other weapons of northern India. This recurved guard is well known on various Indian tulwar forms, but here I must note it is equally present on many into the Deccan and southern regions. These influences are much too reciprocally diffused throughout Central Asia to depend on them for regional classification, however they can be considered as compelling evidence where certain consistancies are found.

It is evident that this Central Asian feature with Ottoman influences well established is something that might be considered to be prevalent through Mughal channels.

Jim, I never would have guessed if you did not say it yourself!!

Thank you so much Eric, that is a most kind thing to say !

There are as many ways to skin a cat just as to become a true academic researcher:-)


Education in a particular discipline is important and necessary only in certain cases requiring certification . But Georg Mendel discovered laws of heredity without ever getting any formal biological education. And how many weapon historians and researchers had formal degree in that discipline? Stone was just a metallurgist dealing with non-ferrous alloys:-) Buttin? As a matter of fact, virtually all important contributions into that field were done by the individuals without any specific formal education in weaponry as such.

What you had, Jim, was your ability and willingness to learn, listen to opinions of experienced people, readiness to discard your own biases, honesty in admitting your errors, respect for books and people and honing your skills in asking the right questions and formulating supportable answers.

That's all what was needed to become "Google" Mc Dougall :-)

I would venture to say that any reasonably intelligent person can become a true "academic" researcher in our field that blissfully does not have formal education and curriculum requirements. We are all autodidacts.

On the other hand, absence of any condition stated above would be a fatal flaw, permanently disqualifying a person from becoming a true researcher.

ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever.

the prescription for ignorance is learning; education by teachers with open minds and the ability to accept ideas from others, testing them, and by your own research, self-education and experience. learning is also making mistakes and eventually not making the same ones. you are not ignorant if you have learned as much as you can and keep trying to exceed your limitations, no matter what your IQ. formal education can actually be a hindrance.

the prescription for stupidity is euthanasia; chlorinating the gene pool for the sake of the rest of us and the future. sadly too many of us, mostly politicians, seem incapable of even accepting that much change. they seem to revel in and enjoy their status quo. the occasional one gets a bit of enlightenment and resigns before the stuff hits the fan.

p.s. - there is a cure for all this off topic maudlin pedantry: it's called 'Beer', sadly not available to all. occasionally a good quinta port works well too, as fernando may be able to confirm.

Ariel, your most kind words are so welcomed, and only surpassed by the eloquence in the way you have expressed them. I hope others will be inspired to follow them as well, as they are so true.
I sincerely thank you.

What is most important is that all of us here have different styles, levels of learning, fields of study and pretty much an infinite spectrum of personalities. All we need is to put them all together and continue to learn together, and the possibilities to advance all our knowledge is endless.

Kronckew, very well said........lets all have a beer!!!
and get back to palouars (or whatever they are) etc. !!!!:)

You guys are all the best!

Well, boys, if you have a chance to get a bottle of "Two-hearted ale" from Bell's Brewery in Kalamazoo, you will get addicted to the best IPA you will ever taste....

Sorry, just had to spread the good word. All non-Michiganders need to get educated about the best things in life.

Back to the sharpies!

All in the name of education... :)

:)

education, of course. i'm still occasionally researching for a paper on comparative beer tasteology rankings. there are some local craft micro-breweries here. i prefer the stouts and porters now, more flavour.

one of the best beers i recall was a locally brewed heiniken i had at amman airport waiting to change planes. 1st real beer after my first year in saudi. also stopped in munich, had some admittedly better beers there, but...that 1st one was special.

what has this to do with sharp pointies? nothing...everything.

win one glorious golden 'attaboy' if you can guess who said those last two words, where and when.

Plato.