It is interesting questions you raise, which, no doubt, have made quite a lot of others wonder too.
In Anthony C.Tirri’s book Islamic Weapons, page 329, Figure 249D, a tulwar hilt is shown, and the text to the picture is ‘ Tulwar with pommel removed for a large hand’. Firstly, it is rather removal of the disc, which would give more room for a big hand, and secondly I don’t know from where Tirri knows this, as he does not give any reference to his knowledge.
In Des Armes Orientales by P.Holstein, 1931, volume II, plate 1 and 6, another tulwar hilt without disc is shown (see the picture, showing both sides of the hilt). Holstein gives the place of origin as Katch. The strange think here is, that when looking closely is seems as if there never was a disc, but there are slits on each side of the hilt where it should have been, but the slit does not seem to go the whole way around the hilt, only on each side. If the hilt was not meant to have a disc, why make the slits?
I have never seen a tulwar hilt without a disc, other that on these pictures, but I have heard about two more. They were taken, after a one of the last English cavalry attacks, close to the Khyber Pass in the 1930’ies.
At a time when a sword was important to the owner, not only to keep him alive, but also as a status symbol, I doubt very much, that someone would remove the disc and pommel on a hilt as by doing this reduce the value. I can’t say that it was not done, but so far I have problems believing in it. It would seem more likely that the owner would have the sword rehilted with a hilt in the right size. It could of course be, that the sword was part of a loot, and that the owner was a very poor man with big hands – who knows?
|