Tulwar Hilt Types

[sabertasche]

Hi all, it has been some time since I've participated in the forum and thought I'd ask a few questions of the more advanced collectors of Indian arms. Ove the years I've been fortunate to pick up several "Indian" swords, commonly refered to as Tulwars. When you do a search within the forum there are many, many pages on such swords, most seem to discuss the blade. In the sword that I have and those that I have examined, I've noticed that the hilts vary considerably in quality and condition compared to the blade. This leads me to believe that hilts were commonly exchanged. This certainly makes sense to me based on the hard use of the blades over time. My questions really are regarding the hilts.

In several posts, a collector will call a hilt Lahore, or Sinde etc and I'm still trying to figure out what typilifies such hilt? From reading posts within the forum I've come to identify enamelled hilts with Lahore but this is probably much too simplistic. So what I'm looking for is, based on the shape and construction of the hilt can you determine where in India a particular hilt was made?

Attached are some pics of swords hilts that I have in my collection. All vary in the quality of thier construction and condition. Please note the the orientation of the quillons and whether the pommel is dished or flat. Note that one hilt has sepperately applied swans on the knuckle guard. What is the significance of this?

My goal is to look a hilt and be able to generally say based on the shape "that's a Sinde or Delhi hilt!"

Cheers,

Greg

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Greg,
You have asked the question of the ages that continuously tears at nearly all enthusiasts of Indian weapons, particularly those interested in tulwars. The truth is that there are no finite attributions to these hilts, commonly termed Indo-Muslim in style, and there have been many attempts to find consistancies in typology and classification.

It is not only the hilt and the elements of it, but often comprehensive assessment of the sword altogether which is necessary for any semblance of identification. Most of the individuals who seriously study these, are basing opinions on certain characteristics from available literature and regularly handing various examples. While I feel I have a working knowledge of many of these in degree, I am far from presuming any expertise, and there are a number of guys here who have far more experience, Jens Nordlund being my first thought.

I am not sure which references you have, but I am hoping you have the following:
1. "The Indian Sword" P.S. Rawson 1968
2. " Indian Arms & Armour" G.N.Pant, 1980
3. "Handbook of Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" Egerton,1880,
4. "On Damascus Steel" L. Figiel, 1991
5. "Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India" E Jaiwent Paul,2005

These references represent the benchmarks on which most of the research and assessments concerning tulwars are based to date, and there are of course a number of focused projects at present trying to accomplish exactly the same guidelines you mention.

Using the references I have mentioned, it is important to try to define the history of key locations used to describe tulwars. It seems that Lucknow was one of the key centers for enamelling, and some of the other elaborate decoration. This was essentially a Mughal location.

The most prevalent region for tulwars would be Rajasthan, a broad area which includes Banswara, which is one of the locations that seems noted for the swanlike, recurved knuckleguard you have noted. The northern part comprises Udaipur, and the bottom hilt in your grouping with peaked grip, squared langet, large flat dish pommel is considered Udaipur style according to Pant, and these seem invariably throughout the 19th century.

The Udaipur regions were essentially Rajput, and tulwars with knuckleguards may often be considered Rajput, but also perhaps Sikh, which is the third basic denominator for tulwars.

However, the hilt you show with vertical ribbed grip (very much like Figiel, pp.56-57) is considered an 18th century pattern, and these have been considered generally a Rajasthan form of hilt, however these are often seen with clearly Mughal blades. This illustrates how fragile the potential for accurate identification is, as these hilts were often made in one location and supplied to armourers elsewhere, not to mention constant diplomatic contacts and intrigue.



Lahore is the center for the Punjab, and most often noted in referring to tulwars which are often decorated with certain koftgari patterns and motifs.
I have been told that the book by Susan Strong, "The Arts of the Sikh Kingdoms" (1999) has excellent examples illustrating this type of koftgari (nos. 151,152,155,158,159,162, 171, 172) . By examining these examples you might be able to recognize typological forms associated with Sikh forms of tulwar and weapons.
One always hopes to find the gurumakhi script on a weapon that will irrevocably define it as a Sikh weapon, but these are hard to find.

The most confusing term used for tulwar hilts is 'delhishahi' which of course suggests these are from Delhi, and they exist with open hilt or with knucklebow.

Key variations are seen in the pommels, and the dome or capstan or both atop the disc, which may be dished, bowl or flat.

The only reference to a Sindhi tulwar type I can find at the moment seems to be in Egerton (#729) from Haiderabad (in Sind, as opposed to the Hyderabad in the Deccan). This has an open hilt, domed pommel. Egerton notes on p.135, "...Sindian arms approach more closely the Persian than the Afghan type".
I have seen examples of sabres with steel Persian shamshir type hilt and tulwar form langets and quillons, that I sincerely suspect to be from regions of Sind, perhaps more north. Persian shamshirs are well known in Mughal courts in standard form as well, and in Rawson are termed 'tulwar'. In my experience, Sind is not a designation I often hear for tulwars, although clearly they exist there, but are probably not made there.

Mughals were more inclined to have Persian blades, and this is often a factor, also I have seen references that the flueret shape on quillon terminals is a Mughal characteristic.
Tulwars did not typically reach into the southern India regions, with the exception of Mysore and Tipu Sultan, as well as other Mughal dominions intermediate.

One of the more subtle, and key elements that is hoped to define any type of regionality and period for tulwar hilt types is the botanical and floral motif chosen. You have wisely shown the pommel dish decoration, which is also very important, and often carries a solar motif, key to certain Rajput clans as well as thier traditions. Variations in this decoration can reflect other attribution as well.

I hope this is of any help, and it is not just stuff I know, but have been reviewing as I wrote. I have learned a bit myself as I have written this, and I look forward to thoughts and/or corrections from others who are more familiar with these fascinating swords.

All the best,
Jim

[ariel]

Couple of years ago, a gentleman from the UK gave a talk in Timonium addressing this topic ( for the life of me, I cannot remember his name, dang!!!)
He said that there is only one type of "tulwar" handle that can be attributed to a particular place/group: Sikhs had one with symmetrical and rather sharp projections on both sides of the handle, similar to the last example here.

[CharlesS]

Ariel,

I believe that was Jonathan Barrett, the speaker at the forum meeting that is.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Couple of years ago, a gentleman from the UK gave a talk in Timonium addressing this topic ( for the life of me, I cannot remember his name, dang!!!)
He said that there is only one type of "tulwar" handle that can be attributed to a particular place/group: Sikhs had one with symmetrical and rather sharp projections on both sides of the handle, similar to the last example here.

As Charles has noted, it was indeed Jonathan Barrett, and one of the most spellbinding talks I have ever heard. The tulwar style at the bottom that I noted with peaked profile at center of grip and elongated rectangular grip and often termed Udaipur, are indeed often attributed to Sikhs.

In the following years as I tried to discover a means of identifying Sikh weapons, I once was told by Parmjit Singh ( coauthor of "Warrior Saints", "..if it is a sword used by a Sikh, then it is Sikh!". )
Jonathan Barrett was kind enough to suggest the notes I included regarding the Susan Stronge book and using the koftgari motif as a means of some degree of recognition in the Lahori weapons.

Thanks for the input guys

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Greg,

Please tell me if the fluted hilt with the hand guard has a rope like decoration on the edge of the disc.

The bird on the hand guard could be a swan as mentioned, but it could also be a crane.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Greg, this is not an easy way you have started to walk – but it most surely is an interesting one. Taking an interest in the early history of India, as well as different Indian arts and architecture will help. So when you have read a stack of books on these and other subject on Indian arts, and decided which authors you believe in, as some use texts from others, but rewrite it, so it can be difficult to see from where it is; then you are on the right road – and start to regard all information’s with scepticism from the start, till you are satisfied yourself. To have a theory is always good, but one must remember that it is a theory till proven.

I have made some research on the shown diamond shaped tulwar hilt, you can see the result below, before you do, you should notice that these hilts come in slim, medium and extra large, like most of the other hilts.

This tulwar comes from Udaipur, but it does not prove that this hilt type origins from there like Pant claimed - but never proved. However, he could be right, but as he is dead now, it is up to the rest of us to prove it – if it can be proven.

This tulwar has a hilt of diamond shape, with relatively long, slender quillons, flat at the end. The langets are long, slim and cut off straight at the end. The disc pommel is relatively large, placed in a right angle to the grip, with a sun with rays at the top, and the flower in the middle ends in a short spike. The decoration, is very easily recognised, is in a floral motif in gold koft gari.

The blade is pattern welded in an almost step pattern. It has two short fullers at each side of the langets, ending with three dots. Two long fullers along the blade, one ending at the false edge, and the other further down, both start and end with three dots.

Total length 88.5 cm. Length of blade 76 cm. Ricasso 6 cm. Hilt 18.5 cm. Disc 7.4 cm. Width of quillons 10.4 cm. Length of langet 6.9 cm.

Inscriptions:

On the back of the blade, near the hilt an inscription in Arabic letters reading ‘Shaika Nanhu Musavi’. The inscription is in Urdu and translates to ‘The Honourable young Musavi’. Musavi is a common Muslim name, and Musa is derived from the Jewish name Moses.

Under the disc, around the edge of the grip is another inscription in Devnagiri, reading ‘Shri JodhSinghji S(a)l B (‘B’ stands for Bahadur, a prominent religious deity in Gujarat/Kutch.) 1927’. The year 1927 is given in the Vikrama Samvat era and corresponds to 1870-71 AD, during the rule of Rao Jodh Singh II of. Salumbar. And so the translation potentially reads ‘Shri (a title given to royalty) Jodh Singh Bahadur Salumbar 1927’.

The second part of the text says, ‘Maharaja Dhi Raj Shri Maha Rao (N) Ji Shri’, and translates roughly as ‘His Royal Magnificent Highness’.

Salumbar (Thikana) was a small kingdom in Udaipur, which is among one of the most prestigious states of the Hindu state of Mewar. As Salumbar was part of Udaipur/Mewar they paid tribute to the ruler of Udaipur.

The main part of the Mewar Rajput rulers belonged to the Sisodiya clan, of which there are several branches and sub branches.

The Guhilots ruled Mewar from the 8th to the 14th century, and the Sisodias ruled from the 14th and they are still Maharajas of Mewar.

When the rule by the Sisodias of the Chundawat clan started in Salumbar is not clear, but the first ruler was Rawat Chunda Singh, who was succeeded by his son Rawat Kandhal Singh, who again was succeeded by his son Rawat Ratan Singh I, who died in 1527, so their rule goes back for centuries. The present Rawat of the same old family, the twenty-eight, Rawat Devrath Singh, Succeeded his father who died in 2002.

In 1901 the population is said to have been 31’000, so it was a relatively small state.

Rao Jodh Singh II was the 24th ruler, borne 1833 in Bambora, ruling from 1863 to 1901(?) He adopted Kunwar (A title given to the son of a ruler during his father’s lifetime.) Tej Singh, the third son of Rao Bhupal Singh of Bhadesar. Tej Singh died young, and so the fourth son of Rao Bupal Singh was adopted, but did not succeed there, as Onar Singh in 1901 was the next Rao of Salumbar.

The families of Salumbar and Bhadesar were related, as the first ruler of Bhadesar, Rao Bhairav Singh was the second son of Rao Bhim Singh, the 19th ruler of Salumbar.

BTW please keep you pictures together. I suppose that your pictures 1, 2 and 5 are of the same object, and that pictures 3 and forur are from the same hilt.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
This is a really interesting subject, unfortunately I am not able to add any academic insight but here are a few photos of more hilts.
Regards,
Norman.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Norman.

When I wrote that the hilts come in small, medium and large I did not mean the hilt sizes, but the grip widths, you can especially see this on the diamond shaped hilts. The hilt shown is from one of Hendley’s books and shows a slim version of the diamond shaped hilt. Notice that the quillons are not flat, but the langets are square.

I wonder where we lost Sabretask?

Sorry I should have added that Hendley writes this hilt is from Jodhpur.

[ariel]

This one is the most interesting I have.
In addition to a very good wootz blade, it has a COPPER handle that still bears remnants of gilding. I am aware of Elgood's comments on the use of copper for handles, but would like to hear opinions on how frequent they were and the potential origin/age of this one. No markings anywhere.

[ariel]

wrong posting

[ALEX]

Why is it wrong posting? That's a nice "Standard Indian Hilt", Ariel:-)
Here is another, similar shaped hilt. My question is: would the decorations say more than the shape? I am sure they would, and this is where it gets really complicated:-)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Alex for showing the hilt. Is the decoration on the blade silver?

Few hilts can, to my knowledge, be put in a box labelled with the name of one of the Indian states. As far too many of the hilts were use over a very big area – they became fashion so to say.

When it comes to the decoration it is mostly the same. Lotus, roses, chrysanthemums, carnations, poppies and others are frequently seen, but here too it is, at best, very difficult – often even to recognise the flower, as working in metal is difficult and to this comes the artistic touch, plus, the artist had to fill the whole surface, so if he had some extra space he would have to invent a flower with extra petals or something else fitting into the scheme.

With this said, I agree with you, that it sometimes is possible to connect the hilt forms and the way the decoration is made. This, however, takes a lot of time, and you will need to see more hilts than most on this forum will ever see – and to be able to remember them and their details.

Attached a 'slim' version of a diamond shaped hilt.

[ALEX]

Jens,
The blade is only chiselled, it has no inlays. The handle MAY not be original to the blade, and later replacement.
You are right - it'd be an enormous academic undertaking to be able to relay geometrical decorations to geographical locations. I know of only one person who's able to come close:-)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Alex,

I find the hilt Ariel is showing very interesting. It is from Rajasthan, but it is made of copper - and this is interesting as few hilts made of copper comes from this area.

Long ago I thought that certain flowers could be related to certain areas – now I am not so sure any more, unless if you regard the areas as very big one – like Rajasthan. In some parts some flowers will be seen more often than in other areas, and the poppy seems to be very popular. However they may be made in different ways, so they can be difficult to recognise. what I think we should be looking for is a connection between the flowers/decoration and what it meant to the people at the time.

The hilt forms is almost the same, some hilts were traded and some looted, while others may have been made in a style different from what was common in that part of the country – this does not make it any easier. But if we collectors try long and hard enough, I believe that one day one of us will find a key to, at least some of the tilts.

Jens