Good Fighting Tulwar for Review and Commentary

Atlantia · 20th November 2011, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The dot markings are a combination of letters and numbers.
Jens

Thank you Jens,
Do you know if they simply relate to inventory?

Jens Nordlunde · 20th November 2011, 12:50 PM

Its an interesting question, and if I have to be honest I must say, no I don’t know if they are armoury inventory numbers, or at least not armoury numbers like Europeans regard such numbers.

We know that Raja Anup Singh (1638-1698) fought for the Mughals in Deccan, and destroyed many towns and forts, amongst these was Adoni at the end of 1600. We also know that Anup Singh brought a lot of old manuscripts, paintings, weapons and other valuable things to Bikaner. According to descriptions, the booty must have been enormous, and that is why they, in Bikaner, to day have a very fine library with old manuscripts.

We don’t know how many weapons Anup Singh brought back, but he can hardly have seen them, as he was appointed governor after he had taken most of Deccan, and died there about twenty years later. A lot of the weapons, if not the greatest part, in the Bikaner armoury to day, are from Adoni and other places in Deccan, and we know, that many if not all of these weapons are dot marked, but we don’t know why or when. It is said that dot marking was used in other places as well, so a dot mark can point towards Bikaner, but it does not have to.

I hope the table with numerals can help you further.

Jens

Stan S. · 20th November 2011, 02:16 PM

Good stuff! When I have teh time I'll try to figure out what the stamp on my sword says.

I very much doubt that my tulwar is from the original Anup Singh's bounty, as it is clearly of a later date than the seexteen hundreds. However, this is all very interesting never the less. Thanks

20th November 2011, 12:50 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Its an interesting question, and if I have to be honest I must say, no I don’t know if they are armoury inventory numbers, or at least not armoury numbers like Europeans regard such numbers. We know that Raja Anup Singh (1638-1698) fought for the Mughals in Deccan, and destroyed many towns and forts, amongst these was Adoni at the end of 1600. We also know that Anup Singh brought a lot of old manuscripts, paintings, weapons and other valuable things to Bikaner. According to descriptions, the booty must have been enormous, and that is why they, in Bikaner, to day have a very fine library with old manuscripts. We don’t know how many weapons Anup Singh brought back, but he can hardly have seen them, as he was appointed governor after he had taken most of Deccan, and died there about twenty years later. A lot of the weapons, if not the greatest part, in the Bikaner armoury to day, are from Adoni and other places in Deccan, and we know, that many if not all of these weapons are dot marked, but we don’t know why or when. It is said that dot marking was used in other places as well, so a dot mark can point towards Bikaner, but it does not have to. I hope the table with numerals can help you further. Jens Attached Images

20th November 2011, 02:16 PM	#3
Stan S. Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Brooklyn, NY USA Posts: 227	Good stuff! When I have teh time I'll try to figure out what the stamp on my sword says. I very much doubt that my tulwar is from the original Anup Singh's bounty, as it is clearly of a later date than the seexteen hundreds. However, this is all very interesting never the less. Thanks