Hunting Tulwar (Tulwar Shikargah)

[BBJW]

I just said I 'suspect' as I have seen several kukris that were circa 1900 that had been fitted with tulwar hilts. I have 2 old koras that are very black with age and have barely visible lotus flowers at the end of the blades.-- bbjw

[Cathey]

Thankyou Norman

Would you mind if I include your shield in my article? From what I have been able to find there are certainly early references to these heavily engraved items as early as the 18th century. It appears Tulwars and in particular Katars where often used for hunting particularly from horseback.

Interestingly the one I acquired recently is well balanced and has an extremely sharp edge. Previously I had always dismissed these items as temple swords, it hadn’t occurred to me that they were actually hunting weapons.

Cheers Cathey

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Cathey,

The fact that a blade has a sharp edge is by no means a sign it is of good quality or that it has practical use. You can give a very sharp edge even to a piece of plastic (think of disposable cutlery). Aluminum foil is very sharp, yet you cannot use it for cutting anything.

One of the defining parameters of the quality of a blade is its edge retention, namely how well it keeps its edge during use.

For a blade to have good edge retention it is very important to have an optimized mix between hardness and toughness. Hardness and toughness are inversely dependent. As hardness goes up, toughness goes down. If hardness is too high, the edge is prone to chipping. If toughness is too high the edge is prone to bending.

Hardness is generally achieved through heat treatment as raw blade steels tend to be rather soft (but tough).

The carved blades generally are not heat treated as any hardening treatment would make them extremely difficult to carve. Also hardening heat treatment cannot be applied after the carving of the blade because the carvings will cause unequal distribution of tension within the blade and will make it prone to bending or breaking.

"Previously I had always dismissed these items as temple swords, it hadn’t occurred to me that they were actually hunting weapons."
Do you have any proof that this kind of blades were used as "temple swords?"
Do you have any proof that this kind of blades "were actually hunting weapons?"
As I said earlier, the fact that the blade is sharp doesn't mean too much in this case.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

…
For a blade to have good edge retention, it is very important to have an optimized mix between hardness and toughness. Hardness and toughness are inversely dependent. As hardness goes up, toughness goes down. If hardness is too high, the edge is prone to chipping. If toughness is too high, the edge is prone to bending.

Hardness is generally achieved through heat treatment, as raw blade steels tend to be rather soft (but tough)....

True, but blades can be differentially heat treated with tougher spines and harder edge. A hard edge steel can be inserted into tougher steel in the main part of the weapon too. Both done historically. A bent blade can be straightened in the field. A broken one cannot.

Carving pre-treatment would make that treatment rather difficult, as you note. Especially if the carvings come very close to the edge.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Europe has a long tradition of depicting scenes of the hunt and of trophies of the hunt on weapons that are particularly designed for hunting. Perhaps it may be the case in other cultures?
Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

FROM: "Arms and Armour at the Jaipur Court"
Robert Elgood, New Delhi, 2015
In this resoundingly important reference, it is noted that Shikargah was a Persian term for a Mughal hunting sword, and refers to miniatures showing the use of swords to hunt animals.

Naturally, we do not know that these swords for hunting were specifically designated and decorated with hunting or animal scenes, just that swords were indeed used for this purpose. As noted in my previous post, Blackmore states that swords used for hunting were the same as those in general use.

Elgood notes further that the shikargah term was "subsequently applied commercially, quite wrongly, to 19th century decorative swords with chiselled animals down the length of the blade,also referred to as shamshir shikargah.


He notes that the Kashmiri swords with animals and men (as noted by Egerton in 1880) with gold relief were made in the Punjab, and were decorative never made for use.
Apparently Mughal hunters considered that a true hunting sword should have dark hilt and mounts and that gold or silver were too conspicuous and would frighten the quarry.

In the footnotes in the text (#319) :
Akbar slaying tigers near Gwalior in 1561 (painted 1600) V&A museum
#320 Hendley, 'Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition ' 1883, pl. X

These two examples of shikargah are as noted of latter 19th c. but are of far too high quality (in my opinion) to simply be decorative souvenirs.
Part of the diplomatic pageantry and ceremony during the Raj were the durbars of course, but the hunt was a much celebrated event. I would suggest these kinds of weapons may well have been presented in accord with these.

I looked into "The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" (Stephan Markel, "Marg", Vol.50, #3, March 1997) to see if there was anything specific to hunt scenes etc. but there was not. It was more to the allegorical and metaphorical aspects of various animals...naming lions (early 17thc) then horses, nilgai (blue grey Indian antelopes), camels, elephants, parrots, rams, and goats, with these referring to zoomorphic hilts.

From : By My Sword and Shield", E.Jaiwent Paul, New Delhi, 1995, p.110;
"......the custom of giving gifts at the durbar (court)of local rulers and at every public reception of a guest, has also contributed to the demand for ornamental arms. At the Mughal court the bestowal of weapons was a mark of high distinction and a beautiful sword or dagger at the belt of a courtier indicated his position at the court, signaling imperial approval".

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

"... subsequently applied commercially, quite wrongly, to 19th century decorative swords with chiselled animals down the length of the blade,also referred to as shamshir shikargah."

Hi all! Just popping in again to give what info I can here. First of all, in my opinion as someone who mainly studies indian arms, I believe this quote from Elgood (that I have quoted above from Jim's post) is the most important thing to keep in mind here. That is to say that, principally, these aren't hunting swords, or swords with some deep hunting-related symbolism behind them, but rather just swords that happen to have hunting scenes carved into the blades. Most of them were made simply as high quality tourist pieces, and indeed most seem to have succeeded to this point - even to this day westerners seem to get consistently ensnared by the concept that these swords were of deep importance, commensurate with the intensity of their carvings.

My intention here being not to tear down or disregard how cool or impressive the amount of detail in some of these swords can be, but rather just a message of warning not to conflate ultimately vapid tourist bait with those decorations that have legitimate spiritual/religious significance (ok I'll admit calling these swords "vapid" is a bit harsh, but I hope that you all get what I mean ).

Anyways, onto some new-ish information for this discussion, I'd like to point out some linguistic info. As the phrase "shamshir shikargar(h)" would imply, this phrase is likely of a persian or heavily persian-influenced origin (what with the use of the term shamshir as opposed to tulwar). Of note, however, is that even in modern hindi, the term "shikar" is most often used to refer to the action of hunting or a hunter, with "shikargar" indeed likely being an older/archaic term for the latter. The modern term in hindi for a hunter, meanwhile, is funnily enough even more persianized; "shikari". The "i" at the end serving the same purpose as the i in say, afghani, iraqi, punjabi, etc., i.e. designating that something is of/comes from that place. In the case of "shikari", this would mean they are a "person of the hunt", literally speaking. I would be willing to guess this is what the "gar(h)" at the end of "shikargar(h)" means as well.

One possible explanation for this relates to the root of the verb "to do" in hindi being "kar", which could potentially be misheard and colonially transliterated as "gar" instead, especially when spoken quickly by a native speaker (someone saying something along the lines of "(this is a) shamshir shikar kar" - a shamishir that one is to hunt with). This is also why I prefer using the spelling of "shikargar", as I feel "shikargah" is phonetically too vague and, likely, is the result of someone mishearing the last consonant of the original term.

Finally, however, I will note that all of this linguistics talk is pure speculation and conjecture. I am, compared to an actual, professional linguist, purely a "linguistic dilettante" of sorts, and though I find the area fascinating I am not at all fluent in Hindi or any other south asian language. Rather, all of this is built off of the 1 and a half years of hindi that I took while at university .

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Cathey

Thankyou Norman

Would you mind if I include your shield in my article?

Cheers Cathey

Hi Cathey,
Absolutely no problem, if you need better/different images just let me know.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

One thing I think being overlooked is the fact that many animals, birds and other fauna were much admired in Mughal courts as seen in cases with the Mughal emperor Akbar (16th c.). The Mughals were much enamored and influenced by Persian poetry along of course with most everything Persian.

With this, depictions of various animals were used in art metaphorically and allegorically. Notice in these scenes, the animals are in various combative situations with each other, or in some cases unarmed humans are involved.

Akbar was intrigued by cheetahs, and actually captured many with the intent of training them for the hunt. Elephants obviously were used in warfare and hunting.

The tiger is much admired, and feared, and Tipu Sultan was well known with the sobriquet "The Lion of Mysore". His regalia was of course heavily decorated with bubris (tiger stripes) The symbol known as the cintamani
of Timur from whom the Mughal dynasty derived is comprised of lines for the tiger and spots for the cheetah.

Tipu was also known for using metaphor such as a tiger attacking a European in artistic creations, symbolizing his power defeating them.

It seems that it is well represented that shamshirs and tulwars were indeed used in the hunt, however these blades and weaponry highly adorned with various animals appoear to be more toward Mughal admiration of them and perhaps in cases used metaphorically.

In this blade example, we see the individuals apparently training or attempting to control the elephants, which of course was normal as the elephants were used in hunting. The threat of attack by tigers on hunting parties was of course well known.


These seem the more esoteric aspects of these arms worthy of further note here.

Question: are there any examples of these 'hunting' arms which actually show men with weapons hunting the animals? As far as I have seen the depictions of these events are typically in miniatures and similar art.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Notice in these scenes, the animals are in various combative situations with each other, or in some cases unarmed humans are involved...

I have noticed that, but i thought; Jim will no doubt approach that, with all his authority ...

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

: ... are there any examples of these 'hunting' arms which actually show men with weapons hunting the animals ? ... As far as I have seen the depictions of these events are typically in miniatures and similar art.

You are right. I do have paintings with such motifs but, not being weapons, they don't fit within the subject.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Question: are there any examples of these 'hunting' arms which actually show men with weapons hunting the animals? As far as I have seen the depictions of these events are typically in miniatures and similar art.

Definitely there are!

I had a couple of 19th century miniatures depicting hunting scenes as you have seen but I have also seen some hunting scenes in silver repousse and carved in stone.
I also have a 19-20th century presentation dagger with a very well made high relief engraved koftgari hunting scene.

[Jim McDougall]

As they say in these parts in Texas, 'well....there ya go!'
Thank you very much Marius!
So we know that actual HUNT scenes are on various items of material culture in addition to the miniatures, to include daggers.
Thanks for the most kind note Fernando . The art of course depicts the hunt, and using swords, but as far as I have seen, no swords with said scenes.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Question: are there any examples of these 'hunting' arms which actually show men with weapons hunting the animals? ...

Apparently very hard to find, Jim; go figure why .
Here is one, for a change; although with engravings rather poorer by far than those in Cathey's sword.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Very impressive indeed, and the panels with scenes seem OK, I have a hard time gauging from photos the quality. The overall quality seems impressive for what these are. In my opinion, based on what I have learned from others who have deeply studied Indian arms, these are most likely diplomatic or court type swords, but there lingers the potential number which were likely made as souvenirs hawked at durbars.

My comments on the examples of these swords with 'hunt scenes' should have noted, 'I personally have not seen such scenes on sword blades,but have seen the array of animal images'.
In the noteworthy quip of an esteemed colleague, "a sword with floral motif engraved on its blade, does not mean it was carried by a gardener!"

Here it seems the hunt is carried out with lances and bow and arrow, which seem more feasible weapons, while the sword (and katar) are more likely for the 'closure', as the prey is surrounded. The miniatures depicting the sword in use was more of a heroic analogy it would seem, but not saying not done with actual combat weapons.

It is interesting to see the often elaborate attention given to blades used in European hunting, which is of course much like the context of India and other cultures in its status oriented nature.

Actually the use of motifs on the European hunting hangers often had to do with various regalia and talismanic devices and symbology. The talismanic part of the motif would suggest that the dangers inherent in the hunt were of concern, and there is the prospect of invocation for success.

While clearly these cannot be equated with the scenes on these blades, it seems notable of the importance of the hunt in most cultures.

[David R]

Hunting scenes on aristocratic weaponry go back a long long way!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Here it seems the hunt is carried out with lances and bow and arrow ...

... and a firearm may also be seen; an interesting detail.