Сlassification of Indian swords.

[rumpel9]

I trying to figure out the classification of Indian swords. The fact is that there are many contradictions in the specialized literature on this topic. Therefore, I would like to hear an opinion from those who are interested in this topic and especially live in India.
Talwar and firangi are common terms. Firangi is a sword with a foreign blade. Talwar means sword. At the same time, some swords (talwars) have their own special features and their own names.
So I post photos of various types of swords, the names of which I know. Some types of swords have several photos at once so that the understanding is more complete. If anyone else knows the names of certain types of Indian swords, please write about it.
Foto 1. Classic talwar
2. Goliya
3. Sirohi
4. Tegha
5. Katti
6. Sossun pattah
7. Kirach
8. Khanda
9. Patissa
10. Firangi
And I also have a few questions that I can't find an answer to.:
1. Can a sword with a straight blade be called a talwar?
2. What is the name of a sword with a straight blade of Indian (not European/foreign) production without characteristic features, such as kirach, khanda, patissa?
3. Is it possible to apply the name firangi to a sword with a curved blade of foreign manufacture (photo 11)?
4. What is the correct name for the swords in photos 12 and 13?

[rumpel9]

more pics

[rumpel9]

last pic

[Drabant1701]

What a great collection! Are all of them yours? I can see some great ones in that lot.
Is nr 12 an Ahir sword, maybe? Looking in Tirri´s book.
Nr 13 may have been longer ones and shortened becasue of damage. Does the hollowing end before the point or go all the way through it?

[David R]

Wow, and thank you for the posts.... and wow again!

[Nihl]

Oh my, this is quite a big topic. I certainly hope this thread doesn't spiral into too much of a heated debate, as most often happens when people bring up names and terminology here.

So, while I'll address your post more directly after this, your *general* issue here is the result of two things:
1. India has a unique martial culture, not seen much anywhere else in the world.
2. Colonialism.
To elaborate:

1. India is a entire subcontinent, and as such is so diverse it inherently resists rigid categorization. This is to say that, no real method of naming things will really apply to the entire subcontinent, as there will always be exceptions one can find. This is why there are many contradictions in Indian arms naming conventions, as you pointed out. This diversity is not only linguistic, but also material, which gets into the "unique martial culture" bit from above. In short, arms production in India, given that it was an entire diverse subcontinent, was never standardized. This is the reason why there is so much variation in forms and blade-hilt combinations. Certain state/royalty-funded workshops existed, certainly, but narrowing down such things is still something being researched, and nothing can be said definitively in terms of regional styles quite yet. The point overall though is really that such a decentralized industry had no conventions from city-to-city or region-to-region in terms of what a sword had to "be" or look like, which is why very few Indian swords look identical to one another.

2. Basically, if you wanted a fair look at Indian arms naming and typologies, European (primarily British) colonialism messed the whole thing up. It - very brutally - ended centuries of arms producing traditions, and just as brutally scattered any attempts at preserving much of the art surrounding such production - including any possible naming or typological conventions that may or may not have been present in arms-producing centers. Many of the names we use today also come from colonial ethnographers who did little more than go up to people on the street and ask "Hey, what do you call this?", after which they promptly transliterated the response based on what they heard, with little care for native spelling or dialectical variation. They (old ethnographers) are the reason why we have odd terms like "tooroom" to refer to a hooded katar, or "congavellum" to refer to a type of machete sword in southwest India. In reality, in the modern day, it is near impossible to discern the linguistic validity of either of these terms, and many more like them that have stuck around to the modern day. Ethnographers also tended to just mash terms and objects together, which is why today we call older forms of khanda "patissa", when in reality current research indicates the term "pattisha" was historically used for a type of spear, not a sword.

Despite all this, some communities recently have been able to speak out and state their own native terminology. In Marathi, for example, the term Dhop is used to refer to a basket-hilted sword with a long, curving blade (usually used by cavalry). The term Dandpatta is preffered over just "Pata", as it is their term for the gauntlet sword. With the Sikhs, they insist on the term Goli(y)a (meaning something like "circle") to refer to swords with a shamshir-style blade but conventional tulwar hilts.

--Overall, if you take away anything from the above, just know that Indian terminology is very complex and overlapping due to historic decentralized production, mixed with centuries of colonialism.

NOW to get on to your actual post. I suppose it would be best to address everything in the order that you listed it:

1. I don't see an issue with these examples of "classic" tulwar, just know that all of your examples are from different regions and likely, technically, are not all the same type. One might be referred to as "punjabi-style" vs "delhi-style" for example.
2. Not to be insulting, but IMO this is a poor example of a golia. As stated earlier, golia is a punjabi sikh term, referring to a sword with a tulwar hilt and a deeply curving, shamshir-style blade. While your provided example does have a noticeable curve, I would say it straddles the line too much to definitively say it's a golia-style sword.
3. "Sirohi" is not an actual style of sword, classically speaking. It was a certain blade shape produced in the Rajasthani town of sirohi during the 19th century, but does not have any huge, historical precedence anywhere else in India. Sirohi-made swords had a positive reputation in 19th century India, and as such the place of origin stuck as a name for the most common blade shape they produced, but again, "sirhois" aren't an actual style of sword.
4. No issue, teghas r cool lol. Example D looks unusually short though.
5. While your top example works, the bottom one to me looks like a khyber knife-style blade that is just bent into a recurving shape. This, to me, makes it too idiosyncratic to really categorize.
6 - 8: All good
9: None of these are really examples of what is considered a patissa in modern collector parlance, sorry. Example A is an afghan pulwar hilt with a 19th century wootz khanda blade. B. looks to be a malabari brass or bronze reproduction of an earlier, mid-late medieval version of a khanda. C. is just an 18/19th century khanda. For an example of what is considered a patissa by modern collectors, see the link I attached earlier.
10. Yep, that is a very archetypical version of a firangi.
Q. 1: Sure! The term makes no such distinction inherently. If you want to make sure everyone knows that the tulwar you're referring to has a straight blade, just call it a straight-bladed tulwar!
Q. 2: Do you mean like the example of a firangi you posted, but with an indian-made blade and not a european one? Again, all fine! We currently know of no such terms to distinguish the two, and everyone just calls any indian sword they see with a european-style blade a firangi these days. That's not a very satisfying answer, but sadly such is the world of Indian arms classification.
Q. 3: Yep! All the term specifies is that the sword has a european-made blade, not specifically a straight one. Although again, as shown in my previous answer, the denotative and connotative uses of these terms quite vary.
Q. 4: I, personally, like to be as accurate as possible in my names, so I apologize for these not being very concise answers. 12: A cavalry sword (dhop) with a likely Tamil-made 18th century basket hilt and a 19th century slab-style native blade. 13: A tulwar with a 19th century Aurangzebi-type hilt and native blade (also 19c) with worn decoration.

[rumpel9]

Originally Posted by Drabant1701

Are all of them yours?
Nr 13 may have been longer ones and shortened becasue of damage. Does the hollowing end before the point or go all the way through it?

Some of the swords I traded or sold. But mostly yes. The sword n13 not shotened, the hollowing end before the point.

[rumpel9]

Nihl, thank you so much for such a thorough answer.

[Norman McCormick]

Sukhela ? or does this term refer to the flexibility of the blade?

Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

Cutlass for want of a better term. Maybe someone could give a better description.
23 1/2 inch blade and not cut down. The pommel is weighted and thus gives the sword a good balance in the hand.
Regards,
Norman.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Cutlass for want of a better term. Maybe someone could give a better description.
23 1/2 inch blade and not cut down. The pommel is weighted and thus gives the sword a good balance in the hand.
Regards,
Norman.

In an Indian context (given that this is indeed an indian sword), this would best be referred to as a Tegha. Based on it's size though, it would likely function similar to a cutlass, so technically that term would work too, albeit it wouldn't be a native term.

[Jim McDougall]

Runpel, this is an excellent idea, and a great way to approach this quite formidable topic of Indian sword terminology. Thank you for setting this up so systematically, and carefully separating and numbering these examples to avoid confusion in discussion. This is a fantastic collection BTW, and wonderful exemplars of the various forms.

Nihl, this is exactly what you were talking about in previous discussions. Thank you for establishing a detailed and well explained path forward in addressing the various terms used for these and the noted applications as far as common use and proper dialectic terms.

I think this can prove to be a valuable comprehensive resource that can compile the best and most useful terms to describe these many weapon forms. While I have studied these for many years, I must admit that many of these terms remain confusing, and it is often, if not typically a factor in many
issues in discussion.

There is no need for any sort of heated debate in this, as long as everyone remembers this is essentially 'brainstorming' and sharing their experience in the use of terms and offer supported background to explain them. It is key to keep this collecting of data objective and most helpful if those writing offer cited sources . This is most important in comparing data for evaluation and compiling a bibliography that will accompany this material.

Full speed ahead!

[ariel]

Nihl put his finger right on the target: our current " classification" of Indian weapons largely comes from European ethnographers with all its limitations of : a). defining the name based on a limited local moniker, b). mistaken transliteration due to the inability of the ethnographers to account for their imperfect hearing of a local dialect ( "Karud" is a classic example) and c). if in the dark, just give it a name of your own invention ( Khyber knife, salawar yataghan, Madrasi rapier etc.). On top of that I would add the timing of the encounter: India is an ancient civilization and a particular weapon might have had several names over 2-3 millennia or being lost altogether.
This is why we are so confused and even antagonistic when the name of, say, khanda is used the define swords clearly not agreeing with " classic" forms as per the same Egerton and Stone? Naive question: is what we call Patissa as per Egerton and Stone, simply an earlier local name for what in the future would be called Khanda?

Regretfully, Indian arms historians were not of much help early on and jumped on board when the Egerton/Stone approach was already firmly established and their books were used as standard sources by the European museums, collectors and dealers.

I think that Elgood's alternative naming of some Indian weapons is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to bring their classification closer to truth.

[Jim McDougall]

While to be sure, Egerton and Stone set the pace for describing Indian arms, whether correct or entirely incorrect, the terms became the lexicon for writing on these weapons over the next century.
Then came Rawson as he catalogued the huge Victoria & Albert collections and pretty much followed the earlier writings, but with certain limited adjustments.
Followed by Pant (1980) who decides to 'correct' Rawson on many counts, but adds to the confusion with his own perspectives.
His attempts to regionalize and add dynastic terms to certain hilts only add more confusion to the conundrum of weapon terms in India.

This melange of terms has been the character of description we have all muddled through these years in discussions, pretty much the 'Tower of Babel' syndrome in many cases.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Sukhela ? or does this term refer to the flexibility of the blade?

Regards,
Norman.

So "Sukhela" originated as a native term used to refer to pattern welded ("damascus") steel in the 19th century. The thing is, because natives would sometimes describe their swords solely by the blade material, ethnographers ended up mixing up the term with with other characteristics, like rigidity, blade form, etc.

[Norman McCormick]

Nihl, thank you for your observations.
My Regards,
Norman.

[rumpel9]

ariel, I thought these terms referred to blades. In other words, it is necessary to say "Arapusta/Arapusta talwar" what it will mean serrated sword. Or a term Arapusta/Arapusta this refers specifically to the sword in general, and one word is enough to name a sword?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by rumpel9

ariel, I thought these terms referred to blades. In other words, it is necessary to say "Arapusta/Arapusta talwar" what it will mean serrated sword. Or a term Arapusta/Arapusta this refers specifically to the sword in general, and one word is enough to name a sword?

Yes, AFAIK these terms refer to blades only, although both of us are not sure:-(
Can somebody clarify it?

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

Yes, AFAIK these terms refer to blades only, although both of us are not sure:-(
Can somebody clarify it?

While I know I've definitely heard these terms before, I can't pinpoint quite where? Admittedly, my collection of "the classics" is severely lacking, but looking through the books that I do have (Elgood and Stone and the like) I can't find any glossary entries for these terms. As such, I too have to ask: can anyone clarify what the origin of these terms are (or where they were first recorded)?

In regards to their use, assuming they are legitimate and not mistranslated or anything, I agree with Rumpel's suggestion of "arapusta tulwar". In other words, I believe arapusta/aradam should be used as adjectives, not standalone terms. "Arapusta tulwar" can basically translate to "serrated sword" in the generic sense, but then something like "aradam khanda" or "arapusta firangi" can be used for specific examples as they appear. Using the more common word/sword type (tulwar) along with a more esoteric word should also make the term more approachable for beginners IMO, so they can know that the sword being referred to is a subtype, and not a separate specialized type of sword. Indeed, to my knowledge, more often than not these serrated blades are demonstrations of an artisan's skill rather than intended for battlefield use, which makes them a subtype to me.

[rumpel9]

I remembered another one of my Indian swords, which can serve as an illustration or a subject of discussion. Can we call him katti?