Tulwar with pronounced Yelman.
 

Hi,
A new addition to my Indian collection. Total length 38 1/2 inches, blade 33 1/4 inches, thickness at greatest 9/32 inches, width 2 inches reducing to 1 1/2 inches just before Yelman. The Yelman is 11 inches long and the back edge is sharpened for the first 3 inches. This is the 'meatiest' and sharpest Tulwar in my collection and the heaviest, needs a good arm to chuck this around. I don't want to speculate on age, origin and blade type/make-up but eagerly await members views and opinions. I look forward to hearing from any and all Forumites.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. I have included photos of three Tulwars of mine with varying degrees of 'Yelman' the most pronounced being the one in this thread. I have also included photos of the hilts of the three swords in the same order to show the difference in ricasso widths.

Hi Norman,

Thank you for sharing, these are great tulwars! :)

Regarding your large tulwar, I would guess that this sabre may have been primarily for cavalry use :confused: I had not yet seen one of that design, size and heavy weight. Great find!

Regards.

All nice mate, but that new one is a stunner! What a blade. Seeing as you've already given it a light clean... how about a gentle FeCl? to see if it brings more out?
I love it! The form is fantastic, is that differentail hardening I see. I drool with envy, what a sword.

Are we going to call it a Tegha?

Hi Christek,
Thanks for your interest, it is certainly long enough to be used from horseback although whether primarily designed for this purpose I'm not sure.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Gene,
Thanks for your kind comments. It certainly looks like differential hardening, there is a scarf weld halfway up the blade and the activity in the blade is much easier to see in real life so things are looking pretty good. I too love the shape and it feels good so am desperate to have a go on a watermelon but I won't. The etching will have to wait, I'm in an apartment now, will ask my friend if I can use his garage. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Don't think it is right for a Tegha, but will wait on the 'expert India wallah's' for an opinion.

Norman, not only is this a superb example tulwar, but this triad of them is to me a quintessant grouping of excellent fighting tulwars! You have also presented them perfectly showing good hilt views as well as lower half blade views, and best of all included a view of the pommel dish top. While typically through the years tulwars have been observed wholly and usually without any note of these pommel dish features. It was Jens some years ago who noted this apparant oversight, and saw the interesting and possibly important variation in the features and motif in these, and began cataloguing the pommel caps along with other views.

While there are really no definitive classifications for tulwar hilts that may be categorically applied, there are some reasonably reliable guidelines which can establish some degree of identifying description. These are best used with careful consideration of various features, decoration and comparison with other provenanced and catalogued examples. I have spent a little time going through notes and some references very much inspired by these three outstanding sabres.

The first on the left, is what I would consider from northwestern regions from Sindh, Baluchistan, Punjab and notable is the fixture at the center of the chowk of the guard which seems typically found on tulwars which have had similar features to Afghan paluoars. The flueret (palmette) quillon terminals are often regarded as Mughal or Deccani features, but they seem as well to be found on some tulwars regarded as Talpuri (from Sindh).

The second and center tulwar is of the type typically regarded from Pant's classification as Udaipuri (Rajasthan) and often the thin wheeled quillon terminals have been stated 19th century. It should be noted that while many of these may be 19th century, they are simply more modern versions of the form which existed in the 18th century, possibly earlier.

Your newly acquired example with knuckleguard seems clearly Mughal and corresponds to hilt forms of the latter 17th century. The domed quillon guards are considered Ottoman affectations, as would be the stylized dragon or makara head.
While the Mughals were highly influenced by Persia, there were strong infusions of Ottoman culture as well in the 17th century.

The blade on this tulwar has the pronounced yelman of Ottoman influence and again corresponds to similar blades of the 17th century, with these used into the 18th. The other two examples have much more subtly integrated yelmans in the widened tip very much like other Central Asian shamshirs of the 17th century.

The unwritten axiom is that the heavier blades tend to be earlier, and I would say all three of these reflect earlier dates from latter 17th into 18th, with the newer acquisition earliest of the three. The other two more toward end of the 18th in my opinion.

I think the 'tegha' term is less than useful and so vaguely described in most sources it's actual application is questionable. Most of the swords I have seen with the term used have been excessively broad bladed and often regarded as 'executioner' swords. These however are likely in most cases of ceremonial or bearing type use.

Excellent note Chris! Most tulwars were indeed for use from horseback, and designed for the drawcut from most of what I have understood. The heavier blades on earlier examples were likely to be more effective against heavy body protection. The Mughals were profoundly influenced by Persia and the much lighter shamshir blades were often preferred for court and swords of influential figures, while these would seem to have been combat forms.

All the best,
Jim

Hi Jim,
Many thanks, once again, for your insight and your time. It was a mucky old warrior when I got it and I'm delighted that apart from the basic historical and form interest it may be earlier than I had hoped. I do think the blade has more to reveal about its construction and make up. I did notice that after cleaning the blade was very quick to oxidize taking on a darker shade when left overnight. This obviously has to be a product of the metallurgy of the blade itself which must contain a reactive element. I have attached photos of the pommels of the other two Tulwars for comparison and completeness, the colour should point to which belongs to which. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

My pleasure Norman, I enjoy the opportunity to see excellent examples like this and try to learn from them. Naturally my views are speculative but I feel fairly soundly based on what I can see and on notes I have looked into.
Again, I appreciate you showing the pommel dish interiors. It has been another of the mysteries of these fascinating sabres as to just how much inherent symbolism may be held in the varying motifs and designs within these disc arrangement, in addition of course with the floral and geometric motifs often in the overall decoration.
The Mughals are known to have selected various botanical themes as dynastic totems so there are possibilities, while Rajput clans similarly are aligned with various celestial and elemental themes. All these things simply add to the intrigue of these Indian arms and it is great to see interest in them among collectors. Thank you so much for sharing these.

All the best,
Jim

Hey Jim,

There seems to be a trend among some collectors of these swords at the moment toward (finally) tackling the division of swords we have always simply called 'Tulwar' into more specific sub-categories.
The reason I posed the question of 'shall we call it a tegha?' is that I have noticed recently he term being more favoured in some circles for broad heavy curved Tulwar, not just the exaggerated examples that we are all used to.
As such, I actually find it rather useful to have as a distinct sub-category and as such I would think that Normans fine heavy curved sword is broad enough to be described as a 'Tegha Tulwar'.
I should add that I don't know the origin or if there is an accepted line where a broad curved blade becomes 'tegha' but there it is.

Besides, anyone who was alive in the UK in the 70s will know that the primary use for those 'giant' Tegha is actually for cutting your Fry's Turkish Delight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAY_o36paQ0

Hi Norman,

It's a beauty, I'd love it myself!
I'd have guessed a date of about 1780 (ish). As has been said already, it has the look of a good 'fighting mans' sword.

Tegha! Hmm, I think it will depend who you ask TBH. A few years ago, I doubt anyone would have even pondered if it should be called a Tegha as the term seemed reserved for those giant ceremonial things.
As I said to Jim, I find it a useful term but will have to leave it for others to decide the validity.

I'll be interested to hear what the specialist collectors of this stuff say and see if there is a cultural divide in terminology.

As I said above, I'd call it a 'Tegha Tulwar' to indicate a broad heavy curved blade somewhat wider than is usual for a Tulwar but on the narrower/straighter range for a Tegha.
I'll have a dig and see if I can illustrate.

Best
Gene

Some interesting similar swords>
All sold so not current sale items.

http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-p...er-sword-es194

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2852

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=2763

Hi Gene/Jim,
All the swords illustrated here are sold items gleaned from the www.Oriental-Arms.com site. All have the word Tegha in their description and only one is described as over 2 inches wide and in this case I suspect not by much. Blade lengths vary from 25 inches up to 35 inches. I would not normally or necessarily have associated these blades with the term Tegha but my knowledge is limited. As has been noted the Tulwar that is the subject of this post is most certainly a fighting sword extremely sharp and showing signs of use where one would expect and not the bearing/ceremonial/execution? item that I would normally associate with the description of Tegha. I look forward to further input with interest.
My regards to you both,
Norman.

P.S. The three swords with the D-guards have the longer blades 29-35 inches with only one of the others similar at 30 inches, I'm not aware whether this has any significance or not.

I think we've illustrated the difficulty in assertaining where a tulwar becomes a Tegha quite nicely.
I'm getting a deja vu now.... either a glitch in the matrix or I've had this debate before.

So if a tegha is a broad curved sword and a tulwar is also a curved sword... both with the same hilt, both single edged...
Where is the line where a Tulwar can be described as Tegha?
:D

I've already got my ideas, so I'll let others chime in before I throw them out there ;)

But I will say that I've often wondered if Tegha aren't properly these and the term wasn't misapropriated for those exaggerated swords we now associate it with.

Best
Gene

I have heard several Sikh martial artists refer to the style above as a "combat tegha", but that may have just been to distinguish it from the huge swords associated with the term "tegha".

Hi Charles,
I have never heard of this attribution but definitely an angle worth pursuing. I have a nearby neighbour who is Sikh, I'll have a chat he may know more or at least know someone who does. Thanks for your interest.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Gene,
"Full of Eastern Promise" brings back memories. The chocolate but more especially the girl looked 'promising' back then!!!! :cool: :D

LOL!Gene, No doubt a fry cook wielding one of these monsters would be pretty scary :)

Elgood in "Hindu Arms & Ritual" addresses the 'tegha' conundrum by noting that the Persian word 'tegh' (Steingass, 1973) =sword, glaive,falchion, knife razor, but in India the word tegha is used for the blade of a sword or knife. He notes further that Rawson (1968) brought the heavy, curved blade of 17th century swords into this, and emphasizes that the tegha term has nothing to do with 'headsmans swords'. (p.265).

Turning to Rawson (1968, pp.6,18,19) he describes the tegha as a broad blade with backward curve. He then notes that strictly speaking tegha is a word in Arabic for blade, but 'following Egerton' it is used to describe a tulwar blade with 'exceptionally deep backward curve'.
He notes there are two types of tegha, one Muslim, the other Hindu. In these descriptions they are both again deep backward curve with no mention of heaviness in the blade. The key differences however are in the hilt one with tulwar form the other with Hindu basket hilt.

Here's where it gets complicated....going another step back to Egerton, the original source (1880, p.117). Tegha is described as short broad heavy blade with two grooves (#536 from Codrington collection 30" blade 2" wide).
He then (p.123) describes a sword (nimcha, tegha,goliah) with the handle with tiger stripes from Seringpatam as from Hindustan c.1780 and is a small sword with slight curve.
Completely contrary to the tegha descriptions and the nimcha is even more puzzling.

We go to 'goliah' (p.123) a heavy sword 'slightly bent' and worn by men of rank.

on p.105 the tegha is described as broad curved sword used by Hindu Rangars and 'Mohammedan Rajputs'.

It seems like the string of misinterpretation evolved through the early writers into the work of Rawson, with Pant and later Elgood trying to address the conundrum as well as possible. As can be seen here, the tegha is regarded as a word which has been apparantly misconstrued by early writers attempting to classify sword types with entirely conflicting results.

I'm glad you noted that the use of the term had become a trend among some collectors, interestingly this phenomenon is exactly where we get the phrase 'collectors term' for many of the misnomers often still with us. It seems that it is popular to assign catchy terms or descriptive terms to some sword types with particular features to rather elevate thier attraction, most often in sales descriptions and catalogs. These are of course less than productive in cases like this where identification of sword forms is quite difficult as it is.

Naturally I would also welcome the input and opinions of the specialists, but these are the observations from my own point of view after reviewing the standard references.

All the best,
Jim

There seems to be some confusion about the tegha, and from the knowledge I have, I will back Jim. Maybe not when it comes to the Mughal question, there I would say Rajasthan – but otherwise I will back him.

I think the term 'tegha' is one, which should be used with care, as it seems that it can be used, having a very broad meaning.


It is ‘smart’ of the dealers to use the term tegha – the headman’s sword – sounds dramatic. You should however read what Robert Elgood writes in Hindu Arms and Ritual (page256) about it. Here he writes that it is NOT a headman’s sword.

To ask a Sikh is of course all right, however even if someone’s roots are in India it does not mean that the one knows anything about Indian weapons; he could be a specialist on Indian stamps, or something else.

Sorry Norman, in the heat of 'the fight' I forgot to comment on your 'new' tulwar :o.
Its a nice one with a very unusual blade form, which I don't remember to have seen before. I would say it is 17th to early 18th century, but as I have not had it in my hand, it is a bit difficult to say exactly.
Jens

Thank you so much Jens, and I entirely agree the newly acquired example is likely Rajasthan, and it would be difficult to say if Rajput or Mughal as often the Rajputs were of course Mughal allies and the diffusion would be unclear.
There is always the very elusive possibility that like many tulwars it could even be Sikh.

Which brings me to the identification of Sikh swords, as we are hoping for information here from certain Sikh associates concerning the use of the term tegha. I recall some years ago when I sought to discover if there were any particular guidelines or characteristics, markings etc. which might help in identifying a sword as of Sikh provenance.
I contacted various Sikh individuals and respectfully asked them these questions to which only vague responses were given, with the final response from one gentleman, 'if a Sikh used the sword...then it is Sikh!"
Naturally I would hope for a bit more useful information, but we must again consider the nature of the question.

Since it would seem that the Western need for concise classifications and categorizations ,which often seems to both puzzle and amuse ethnic and tribal informants being interviewed, perhaps we should consider a 'dictionary' of sword or weapon terms. The number of examples of course would be substantial, but to address our 'tegha' term, it might be as follows, and using the various applications:

Tegha: as used in India for the following,
1.) the blade of a sword, glaive, falchion, knife razor (from Persian 'tegh')
2.)A broad, heavy bladed tulwar, curved and used by Muslim warriors
3.) A broad, heavy bladed khanda used by Hindu warriors
4.)a sword with very deeply curved blade during Mughal period (Rawson, 1968,p.18)
5.) a sword , also nimcha or goliah, small and light with slight curve
and Persian script describing deities (Egerton, 1880, p.123)
6.a heavy sword slightly curved and worn by men of rank
7.also goliah
8.an executioners or headsmans sword with heavy blade
9.a short, broad heavy blade with two grooves (Egerton, p.117)

This would enable the use of subclassifications in sword identification catalogs by parenthesizing the applicable use notation and reduce the ever present terminology debates. :)

All the best,
Jim

Hi Jens/Jim,
Many thanks for your comments and your ongoing interest. As far as the Tegha/Tulwar versus Tulwar/Tegha discussion my knowledge is neither deep nor wide enough to hazard an educated opinion therefore I am following your posts with much interest. As far as a Sikh and his knowledge or lack of re swords, I agree, it is much the same as I am a Scot therefore by definition I should speak/ understand Scots Gaelic, I do neither. My Sikh friend is very much involved with the local temple and I was hoping that some of the older worthies there may have come across the terminology we are discussing, but very likely you are correct Jens and most probably they have not.
I realise that it is very difficult, as you say, to give a definitive opinion without having the item in hand but are there any photographs that I could take that might help you to form a firmer opinion.
My Regards to you Both,
Norman.


P.S. Just for interest the sword weighs in at 3lbs 5ozs.

Interesting points from Jens and Jim.
Thats one heavy sword there Norman! I have to say that I know many who would describe it as a Tegha, correct or no.
I'll be interested to hear the opinions of others who study Indo Persian weapons.

Where are Runjeet, Sandeep, Rick, Artzi and all the others?

I'm seeing a different profile here with the kicked up yelman; one that reminds me more of a Kilij than a Tegha . :shrug:

A conservative Kilij, of course . :o

"Kilij" is simply the Turkish word for 'sword'.

Sorry Charles. :o
This is what I meant .
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=kilij
:shrug:

No prob.

So this tulwar/tegha is now a kilij????:)
Oops, I got lost.......ended up back on the original post, Norman's tulwars.

:) ;) :D

Hi Norman,

It seem as if the discussion has chosen a track of its own, and I think we should try to get it back, to discuss your latest sword (see how easy it is not to mention tulwar/tegha) :).

The blades I have seen of this kind have been curved a bit more or less, but never to an extreme. The yelman can be more or less pronounced. They have no fuller or only a broad single one. They are all broad and heavy blades, and they are 17th or early 18th century blades.

Jens