Afghan Pulowar blade type?

Jim McDougall · 24th July 2016, 09:47 PM

Its always good to revisit old threads often even years later, as our knowledge base and ongoing research often offers new perspectives.
This is especially the case with knowledgeable and specialized writers such as Ariel and Mahratt, and I can only present my own understandings of the article and these weapons.

From what I learned, the sword worn by Daoud Shah in the 1879 photo was key in looking into the potential development of the Afghan 'regulation' short sword of the 1890s into around 1900+. Actually the only suggestion of regulation propriety was made by Oriental Arms at some point years ago and now notes misplaced.

What was significant was the appearance of the hilt on his sword which had slotted guard and rolled back terminal near pommel. Since this was 1879, and he certainly had the sword for a nominal period prior, we wonder if this suggested a larger presence of these type hilts pre Mashin Khana. While that state arsenal began in Kabul in 1887, tooling and production began in the early 1890s. My example of one of the 'regulation short swords' is dated 1893 if I recall.

The Dauod Shah sword seems to have a solid grip hilt, unlike the Mashin Khana examples which are admittedly workmanlike and austere. I would submit here that the primary arms production of the Mashin Khana was fireams, specifically current issue Enfields, and note the compelling appearance of these 'regulation' hilts to that of 'sword' bayonets.

The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife.
The text of the article addresses this comparatively, but does not mean to suggest that the tribal form of Khyber ('silawar') was 'regulation' BUT that it was contemporary to the production military type short swords which ostensibly were.

The example of the 'colonial' hilt worn by Daoud Shah was the key instance in the search for the development of this hilt form, which was indeed European IN FORM but clearly was produced in Afghan or local regions.

I could find no evidence of this kind of military hilt in either British production sources (including Enfield who indeed did import in degree from Solingen) nor the German sources.

I think the 'nusimatic' reference had to do with study on the Mazir i Sharif or Royal state stamp or device, which was keyed on the coins of the time. The presence of these stamps on both 'regulation' military form swords as well as on examples of the tribal Khybers with military hilts, was instrumental in establishing probable dates for examples in this study.

The term 'Khyber' was used mostly as an implied vernacular term for the military type short swords in tandem with the concurrently used tribal versions with the same hilt.

There is no known existing 'regulation ' for the military type Mashin Khana short sword, any more than any established for the use of the term 'Khyber' for the tribal swords which are actually known locally as 'siliwars'.
Further they are not KNIVES nor YATAGHANS!

Therefore the study aims to show more of a colloquially termed pairing of these edged weapons in their Afghan context of the times.

ariel · 24th July 2016, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife.
.

Exactly my point. The article was carefully researched and the description of the actual objects was exemplary. However, it was based on a wrong premise, tried to forcibly prove an incorrect hypothesis and inevitably reached a wrong conclusion.
There was no evolution. It was not even parallel development ( if by that we mean independent creation of virtually identical constructions). We are talking about 2 different short sidearms present in Afghanistan at the same time period.

ariel · 24th July 2016, 10:05 PM

The variety of Afghani short sabers was very wide: the blades, the handles, the manner of carrying.
They were no more "regulation" than khybers of different varieties, and the name of those was legion:-)

Jim McDougall · 24th July 2016, 10:43 PM

Thank you for the additional images Ariel.

I would like to note that I personally feel responsible in the case of the titling and premise of this article. Actually I participated in editing and constructing the text of the original article which was written by Mahratt, at his request as he was concerned with semantics and language issues.
As I had researched these swords many years before, I should have been able to suggest revisions in the overall premise and text, but being impressed with the volume and character of his research and work inadvertently did not.

In all, as noted previously, the Khyber short swords were not regulation in the true sense, simply notable present in consistency in military context.
The traditional Khyber was interpolated in the mix, with the expected array of variations in all of these in a colonial setting.

The article in and of itself, still carries an impressive insight into the Anglicization of Afghan edged weapons of these times, and the use of the royal arsenal stamp and Mashin Khana factory.

Here, I would suggest we leave the Khyber sword and knife aspects and return to the paluoar as in the original post.
This deviation in the discussion does serve as interesting perspective with associations to the paluoar as these weapons were all contemporary and truly offers certain dimension to the times and place where these were used.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 24th July 2016, 11:24 PM

Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !!

Ibrahiim al Balooshi

ariel · 24th July 2016, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !!

Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Ibrahiim,
Interesting observation. If this is correct, it might help in pinpointing " pseudoshashkas" to North India/Afghanistan and date them around the same time, ie second half of 19th century.
The only problem that there are plenty of purely Indian tulwars with a very similar feature.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 25th July 2016, 02:21 AM

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 25th July 2016, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Ibrahiim,
Interesting observation. If this is correct, it might help in pinpointing " pseudoshashkas" to North India/Afghanistan and date them around the same time, ie second half of 19th century.
The only problem that there are plenty of purely Indian tulwars with a very similar feature.

I agree... I ought to add a caveat that the Afghan swords at #64 and the Pulouir style had knuckle guards of a similar type at the top near the Pommel finished in a sort of Goose Neck finial. The project swords have similar finials... It seems the Tulvar and Pulouir are very similar so it may not be surprising that they have similar finials also...This birdhead is certainly sophisticated and mirrors what we learn of Jehangir who personally designed many of these himself.

I should add this ... Please see https://books.google.com.om/books?id...0hilts&f=false where it is clear that Ottoman hilts copied Mughal form on swords and daggers.

ariel · 24th July 2016, 11:43 PM

Jim,
I also feel in part responsible: at Mahratt's request I translated this essay into English. I also did not provide my comments about its fatal logical error. Sorry.
There is a lesson for both of us: if we are asked to assist in any way to a young and academically-inexperienced Forumite, we should not be shy to offer constructive critique. The same applies to all our comments: it is not productive just to applaud politely but insincerely: the whole purpose of intellectual exchange is in perfecting a worthy message and rejecting wrong conclusions.
Learning is possible only if a learner is willing to listen to critique and accept it. It would be nice to learn from somebody else's mistakes , but realistically it is our own ones that give us real knowledge and understanding. Some people do not take well to criticism ( no matter how polite and constructive it might be), and those, IMHO, are hopeless.

But back to the Pulouars ( dang, what is the right way to spell this word?:-))))

Here is my other one: brass-inlaid handle, groove-less blade with no Indian ricasso, but with wootz and unusual scabbard stitching: teeny-tiny nails.

24th July 2016, 10:05 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The variety of Afghani short sabers was very wide: the blades, the handles, the manner of carrying. They were no more "regulation" than khybers of different varieties, and the name of those was legion:-) Attached Images

24th July 2016, 11:24 PM	#5
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !! Ibrahiim al Balooshi Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 24th July 2016 at 11:50 PM.

25th July 2016, 02:21 AM	#7
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 25th July 2016 at 10:35 PM.

24th July 2016, 11:43 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, I also feel in part responsible: at Mahratt's request I translated this essay into English. I also did not provide my comments about its fatal logical error. Sorry. There is a lesson for both of us: if we are asked to assist in any way to a young and academically-inexperienced Forumite, we should not be shy to offer constructive critique. The same applies to all our comments: it is not productive just to applaud politely but insincerely: the whole purpose of intellectual exchange is in perfecting a worthy message and rejecting wrong conclusions. Learning is possible only if a learner is willing to listen to critique and accept it. It would be nice to learn from somebody else's mistakes , but realistically it is our own ones that give us real knowledge and understanding. Some people do not take well to criticism ( no matter how polite and constructive it might be), and those, IMHO, are hopeless. But back to the Pulouars ( dang, what is the right way to spell this word?:-)))) Here is my other one: brass-inlaid handle, groove-less blade with no Indian ricasso, but with wootz and unusual scabbard stitching: teeny-tiny nails. Attached Images Last edited by ariel; 24th July 2016 at 11:54 PM.

24th July 2016, 09:47 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	Its always good to revisit old threads often even years later, as our knowledge base and ongoing research often offers new perspectives. This is especially the case with knowledgeable and specialized writers such as Ariel and Mahratt, and I can only present my own understandings of the article and these weapons. From what I learned, the sword worn by Daoud Shah in the 1879 photo was key in looking into the potential development of the Afghan 'regulation' short sword of the 1890s into around 1900+. Actually the only suggestion of regulation propriety was made by Oriental Arms at some point years ago and now notes misplaced. What was significant was the appearance of the hilt on his sword which had slotted guard and rolled back terminal near pommel. Since this was 1879, and he certainly had the sword for a nominal period prior, we wonder if this suggested a larger presence of these type hilts pre Mashin Khana. While that state arsenal began in Kabul in 1887, tooling and production began in the early 1890s. My example of one of the 'regulation short swords' is dated 1893 if I recall. The Dauod Shah sword seems to have a solid grip hilt, unlike the Mashin Khana examples which are admittedly workmanlike and austere. I would submit here that the primary arms production of the Mashin Khana was fireams, specifically current issue Enfields, and note the compelling appearance of these 'regulation' hilts to that of 'sword' bayonets. The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife. The text of the article addresses this comparatively, but does not mean to suggest that the tribal form of Khyber ('silawar') was 'regulation' BUT that it was contemporary to the production military type short swords which ostensibly were. The example of the 'colonial' hilt worn by Daoud Shah was the key instance in the search for the development of this hilt form, which was indeed European IN FORM but clearly was produced in Afghan or local regions. I could find no evidence of this kind of military hilt in either British production sources (including Enfield who indeed did import in degree from Solingen) nor the German sources. I think the 'nusimatic' reference had to do with study on the Mazir i Sharif or Royal state stamp or device, which was keyed on the coins of the time. The presence of these stamps on both 'regulation' military form swords as well as on examples of the tribal Khybers with military hilts, was instrumental in establishing probable dates for examples in this study. The term 'Khyber' was used mostly as an implied vernacular term for the military type short swords in tandem with the concurrently used tribal versions with the same hilt. There is no known existing 'regulation ' for the military type Mashin Khana short sword, any more than any established for the use of the term 'Khyber' for the tribal swords which are actually known locally as 'siliwars'. Further they are not KNIVES nor YATAGHANS! Therefore the study aims to show more of a colloquially termed pairing of these edged weapons in their Afghan context of the times.

24th July 2016, 10:43 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	Thank you for the additional images Ariel. I would like to note that I personally feel responsible in the case of the titling and premise of this article. Actually I participated in editing and constructing the text of the original article which was written by Mahratt, at his request as he was concerned with semantics and language issues. As I had researched these swords many years before, I should have been able to suggest revisions in the overall premise and text, but being impressed with the volume and character of his research and work inadvertently did not. In all, as noted previously, the Khyber short swords were not regulation in the true sense, simply notable present in consistency in military context. The traditional Khyber was interpolated in the mix, with the expected array of variations in all of these in a colonial setting. The article in and of itself, still carries an impressive insight into the Anglicization of Afghan edged weapons of these times, and the use of the royal arsenal stamp and Mashin Khana factory. Here, I would suggest we leave the Khyber sword and knife aspects and return to the paluoar as in the original post. This deviation in the discussion does serve as interesting perspective with associations to the paluoar as these weapons were all contemporary and truly offers certain dimension to the times and place where these were used.