Thoughts on this tulwar?

pmacleman · 11th July 2006, 09:58 AM

Bought recently. Some moderately bad scratching from previous cleaning attempts but other than that the patina looks quite old.

My reading indicates a central Indian sword of Sikh origin/style. No decoration left if there ever was any. Probably a workhorse blade that shows evidence of having seen some action/sharpening. Shows clear signs of having its tip snapped off and replaced about 20-25cm from tip. Steel unremarkable. Traditional glued in blade. Sheath looks original, or plausible anyway.

Thoughts and age/origin guesstimates appreciated.

Paul

pmacleman · 14th July 2006, 12:09 AM

No opinions? Why, too run of the mill?

VANDOO · 14th July 2006, 06:15 AM

I WOULD NOT CALL IT RUN OF THE MILL I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE GUARD DOES IT REPRESENT A COBRA (NAGA) OR IS IT A FLORAL DESIGN? YOU MIGHT WANT TO CLEAN UP THE BLADE A BIT AND TRY A LITTLE ETCH BEFORE YOU WRITE IT OFF AS UNREMARKABLE. UNFORTUNATELY I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT WEAPONS FROM INDIA BUT I AM SURE SOMEONE WITH SOME KNOWLEGE IN THE FIELD WILL COMMENT IN TIME. I LIKE THE SWORD

GOOD LUCK

B.I · 18th July 2006, 01:22 PM

there is nothing unremarkable about any weapon, intended for, and more than likely used in an important part of someones history.
i dont think this post was ignored, rather it is one that is hard to comment on. more ornate weapons tend to get more attention as they have features that can be discussed, whereas this is hard to tell much about. i personally dont think it is any less important than a watered blade, covered in decorative goldwork.
the sikh thing was noted, and the same point was made on another tulwar recently posted. i am afraid this cant be verified anywhere and so it is a point worth omitting (for now, at least). i cant remember who it was, probably rawson, that noted these types of hilt being of a sikh heritage. unfortunately, rawson tended to 'fill in the gaps' and also tended to make up terminology on hilt forms. none of this was referenced, and i did spend time researching into his sources, of which none mentioned any information on locality for the pieces he described. so, dehli-form, aurangzeb-hilt, sikh-hilt must be ignored until something more substantial is offered.
hopefully this will happen, as there is independant research being done on indian arms and their variations. how much new information to be offered only time can tell.
i believe pant described this form of hilt to be from udiphur, again, unreferenced.
a good friend of mine travelled to india for the last 10 years, spending 1 month a year travelling hard and researching indian swords. he met a swordsmith, who is a member fo a small sword club. this guy's family have always been in the 'sword business' and he is apparantly very knowledgable. he too claims this hilt to be from udiphur, but when i questioned for more information, there was nothing to convince me (in fact far from it). also, many other things that were said seem to come straight from pant himself, and so, besides his family being involved in swords for generations, this guy knew nothing at all that could back up anything he said.
moral of the story, dont listen to anyone just because he is indian and plays with swords!
so, maybe udiphur, maybe sikh, but both speculative and should be used warily.
that aside, the sword is north indian and of the 19thC. some call it munition grade, but i try to stay clear of such descriptive terms.
the point is that india in the 19thC was rife with skirmishes (sikh/sepoy/maharathan/mutinies etc) not to mention the troops that fought alongside the british (but not part of the uniformed army) in other locations.
many of these troops carried unadorned indian swords.
i think the reason pant says it is sikh, is because this is the most common type of hilt found, and i think he assumed that the sikh wars needed many swords, which could have been of this type. possibly, but the sepoy skirmishes where just as common. my knowledge of 19thC india is ok, but not quite my field.
also, there is a post i have meant to write for some time (but not had the time). there was a museum in london, now disbanded that had a huge collection of 'military' objects, donated from various people over the years. the catalogue i have was written in the early 1900s, and it lists many pieces, with descriptions of where and when they were taken (ie which battlefield they were picked up from, the year, and who gave it to the museum). the museum sold off the majority of its pieces (1000s) in the 1960s, and all provenance was lost. so, when you by a 'munitions grade' tulwar, there is always the possibility is was indeed captured at some battle, of taken from a specific hand to hand combat with a british officer, who treasured it and passed it on to the museum (or his wife did after he died). i am not waxing elequantly here, these pieces do exist and are floating around the salerooms, with all provenance long forgotten. i will get round to writing that post, as it covers all british territories and wars (african, chinese, indian etc)
my first ever indian sword was a tulwar not much different to your sword. over the years, my taste changed and as i never wanted a large collection, i sold off/traded up and so my collection changed quite a lot.
i still own my first tulwar, which i will never sell. it is not worth much more than i originally paid many years ago, but it has sentimental value that is priceless. it was this sword that stered my towards my passion, and i still remember swinging it around the living room with a stupid smile on my face.

so, not run of the mill. more, a good, and original 19thC north indian sword and one you should be happy to own.

ariel · 18th July 2006, 01:53 PM

I agree.
There are decorative (or, at least, highly decorated) weapons and munition grade weapons.
The former spent their lives hanging on the wall or adorning some "general" who stayed far away from the front line.
The latter actually participated in battles.
We collect the former for their beauty, cultural marks, quality etc.
The latter are part of active history, with battle scars, rust, wobbly handles, replacement scabbards and signs of repeat sharpening.
Which one to collect? Personal decision: art vs. living witness.

Flavio · 18th July 2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Which one to collect? Personal decision: art vs. living witness.

BOTH!!!!!

11th July 2006, 09:58 AM	#1
pmacleman Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 17	Thoughts on this tulwar? Bought recently. Some moderately bad scratching from previous cleaning attempts but other than that the patina looks quite old. My reading indicates a central Indian sword of Sikh origin/style. No decoration left if there ever was any. Probably a workhorse blade that shows evidence of having seen some action/sharpening. Shows clear signs of having its tip snapped off and replaced about 20-25cm from tip. Steel unremarkable. Traditional glued in blade. Sheath looks original, or plausible anyway. Thoughts and age/origin guesstimates appreciated. Paul

14th July 2006, 12:09 AM	#2
pmacleman Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 17	Nothing? No opinions? Why, too run of the mill?

14th July 2006, 06:15 AM	#3
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I WOULD NOT CALL IT RUN OF THE MILL I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE GUARD DOES IT REPRESENT A COBRA (NAGA) OR IS IT A FLORAL DESIGN? YOU MIGHT WANT TO CLEAN UP THE BLADE A BIT AND TRY A LITTLE ETCH BEFORE YOU WRITE IT OFF AS UNREMARKABLE. UNFORTUNATELY I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT WEAPONS FROM INDIA BUT I AM SURE SOMEONE WITH SOME KNOWLEGE IN THE FIELD WILL COMMENT IN TIME. I LIKE THE SWORD GOOD LUCK

18th July 2006, 01:22 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	there is nothing unremarkable about any weapon, intended for, and more than likely used in an important part of someones history. i dont think this post was ignored, rather it is one that is hard to comment on. more ornate weapons tend to get more attention as they have features that can be discussed, whereas this is hard to tell much about. i personally dont think it is any less important than a watered blade, covered in decorative goldwork. the sikh thing was noted, and the same point was made on another tulwar recently posted. i am afraid this cant be verified anywhere and so it is a point worth omitting (for now, at least). i cant remember who it was, probably rawson, that noted these types of hilt being of a sikh heritage. unfortunately, rawson tended to 'fill in the gaps' and also tended to make up terminology on hilt forms. none of this was referenced, and i did spend time researching into his sources, of which none mentioned any information on locality for the pieces he described. so, dehli-form, aurangzeb-hilt, sikh-hilt must be ignored until something more substantial is offered. hopefully this will happen, as there is independant research being done on indian arms and their variations. how much new information to be offered only time can tell. i believe pant described this form of hilt to be from udiphur, again, unreferenced. a good friend of mine travelled to india for the last 10 years, spending 1 month a year travelling hard and researching indian swords. he met a swordsmith, who is a member fo a small sword club. this guy's family have always been in the 'sword business' and he is apparantly very knowledgable. he too claims this hilt to be from udiphur, but when i questioned for more information, there was nothing to convince me (in fact far from it). also, many other things that were said seem to come straight from pant himself, and so, besides his family being involved in swords for generations, this guy knew nothing at all that could back up anything he said. moral of the story, dont listen to anyone just because he is indian and plays with swords! so, maybe udiphur, maybe sikh, but both speculative and should be used warily. that aside, the sword is north indian and of the 19thC. some call it munition grade, but i try to stay clear of such descriptive terms. the point is that india in the 19thC was rife with skirmishes (sikh/sepoy/maharathan/mutinies etc) not to mention the troops that fought alongside the british (but not part of the uniformed army) in other locations. many of these troops carried unadorned indian swords. i think the reason pant says it is sikh, is because this is the most common type of hilt found, and i think he assumed that the sikh wars needed many swords, which could have been of this type. possibly, but the sepoy skirmishes where just as common. my knowledge of 19thC india is ok, but not quite my field. also, there is a post i have meant to write for some time (but not had the time). there was a museum in london, now disbanded that had a huge collection of 'military' objects, donated from various people over the years. the catalogue i have was written in the early 1900s, and it lists many pieces, with descriptions of where and when they were taken (ie which battlefield they were picked up from, the year, and who gave it to the museum). the museum sold off the majority of its pieces (1000s) in the 1960s, and all provenance was lost. so, when you by a 'munitions grade' tulwar, there is always the possibility is was indeed captured at some battle, of taken from a specific hand to hand combat with a british officer, who treasured it and passed it on to the museum (or his wife did after he died). i am not waxing elequantly here, these pieces do exist and are floating around the salerooms, with all provenance long forgotten. i will get round to writing that post, as it covers all british territories and wars (african, chinese, indian etc) my first ever indian sword was a tulwar not much different to your sword. over the years, my taste changed and as i never wanted a large collection, i sold off/traded up and so my collection changed quite a lot. i still own my first tulwar, which i will never sell. it is not worth much more than i originally paid many years ago, but it has sentimental value that is priceless. it was this sword that stered my towards my passion, and i still remember swinging it around the living room with a stupid smile on my face. so, not run of the mill. more, a good, and original 19thC north indian sword and one you should be happy to own.

18th July 2006, 01:53 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I agree. There are decorative (or, at least, highly decorated) weapons and munition grade weapons. The former spent their lives hanging on the wall or adorning some "general" who stayed far away from the front line. The latter actually participated in battles. We collect the former for their beauty, cultural marks, quality etc. The latter are part of active history, with battle scars, rust, wobbly handles, replacement scabbards and signs of repeat sharpening. Which one to collect? Personal decision: art vs. living witness.