Hunting Tulwar (Tulwar Shikargah)

mariusgmioc · 14th February 2022, 06:50 AM

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 · 17th February 2022, 09:10 AM

Quote:

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 · 17th February 2022, 12:36 PM

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 · 17th February 2022, 10:37 PM

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 · 18th February 2022, 03:51 AM

Quote:

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

.

Jim McDougall · 18th February 2022, 04:49 AM

Nihl, thanks very much for these interesting insights. While I am far from being a linguist as well, I find these kinds of looks into etymology and transliteration fascinating.
What I found in Pant (op. cit. 1980, p.76) was the listing for SHAMSHIR SHIKARGAHA, where he notes (footnote 271) that G.C.Stone (p.553) wrongly spells it as 'shamshir shikargar'.

The Mughal courts were profoundly influenced by the Persians of course, and often did, in high station, carry shamshirs. Here I would note that the term 'shamshir' was of course quite collectively used in Persian for saber, much in the same manner that talwar was used in India for 'sword' in similar manner.
There are suggestions that the word tulwar is also of Persian root.

Many Indian tulwars (Indo-Persian hilt) are termed 'shamshir' (see my post #27 examples from Elgood), while there are shamshir style hilts (the one attached believed Deccani) which are termed tulwar.
In the Native cavalry of the Raj, even the British cavalry sabers carried by them were termed tulwars.

I take the opportunity here to correct my comment in previous post about "The Indian Sword" P.Rawson, 1969.......where I said there was no mention of shikargah......and later found this salient note on p.30;

"...all the sword forms known from the North-West, both from works of art and surviving examples,are versions of the talwar. Although during the late 18th c. the cities of the North-West passed under Sikh and Rajput rule, the sword made and used there remained the talwar.
In the ornament of the weapons however, the craftsmen returned to Hindu motives for inspiration. For example at Lahore, whereas under the Mughlas SWORD BLADES HAD BEEN CHISELED WITH ROWS OF ANIMAL AND HUMAN FIGURES IN PERSIAN STYLE, under the Sikhs the same type of chiseled work was carried on, but the figures were of Hindu origin such as avatars of Vishnu, or the planetary divinities".

This entry would suggest that swords with these chiseled scenes in the blades were indeed viable weapons as produced in these Punjabi regions under Mughal rule, and continued using Hindu motif under the Sikhs and Rajputs.

I found online an example of a 'kirach' stated from Lahore from late 18th c. with Mughal 'shikargah motif. The kirach is simply a tulwar with a straight blade which ticks forward at the tip.

Also, for further reference, which I have not yet consulted:
"Sikh Heritage: Ethos & Relics" by Bhayee Sikander Singh and Roopinder Singh, p.146
A tulwar of Guru Gobind Singh of 18th c. with hunting scenes, which seems contradictory to the previous note on Sikhs using Hindu motif.

Attached: Deccani tulwar
Lahore kirach with shikarga blade

mariusgmioc · 18th February 2022, 07:01 AM

A quite compelling argument that these tulwars with elaborately decorated blades were NOT actually used for hunting but were merely presentation swords is the condition of their edge.

All the blades of this kind that I have seen, as well as the examples presented here, do not show any traces of use and resharpening on their edges, but have the intact, original edge geometry.

14th February 2022, 06:50 AM	#1
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	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. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 14th February 2022 at 08:39 AM.

17th February 2022, 10:37 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	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". Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 18th February 2022 at 03:12 AM.

18th February 2022, 04:49 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	Nihl, thanks very much for these interesting insights. While I am far from being a linguist as well, I find these kinds of looks into etymology and transliteration fascinating. What I found in Pant (op. cit. 1980, p.76) was the listing for SHAMSHIR SHIKARGAHA, where he notes (footnote 271) that G.C.Stone (p.553) wrongly spells it as 'shamshir shikargar'. The Mughal courts were profoundly influenced by the Persians of course, and often did, in high station, carry shamshirs. Here I would note that the term 'shamshir' was of course quite collectively used in Persian for saber, much in the same manner that talwar was used in India for 'sword' in similar manner. There are suggestions that the word tulwar is also of Persian root. Many Indian tulwars (Indo-Persian hilt) are termed 'shamshir' (see my post #27 examples from Elgood), while there are shamshir style hilts (the one attached believed Deccani) which are termed tulwar. In the Native cavalry of the Raj, even the British cavalry sabers carried by them were termed tulwars. I take the opportunity here to correct my comment in previous post about "The Indian Sword" P.Rawson, 1969.......where I said there was no mention of shikargah......and later found this salient note on p.30; "...all the sword forms known from the North-West, both from works of art and surviving examples,are versions of the talwar. Although during the late 18th c. the cities of the North-West passed under Sikh and Rajput rule, the sword made and used there remained the talwar. In the ornament of the weapons however, the craftsmen returned to Hindu motives for inspiration. For example at Lahore, whereas under the Mughlas SWORD BLADES HAD BEEN CHISELED WITH ROWS OF ANIMAL AND HUMAN FIGURES IN PERSIAN STYLE, under the Sikhs the same type of chiseled work was carried on, but the figures were of Hindu origin such as avatars of Vishnu, or the planetary divinities". This entry would suggest that swords with these chiseled scenes in the blades were indeed viable weapons as produced in these Punjabi regions under Mughal rule, and continued using Hindu motif under the Sikhs and Rajputs. I found online an example of a 'kirach' stated from Lahore from late 18th c. with Mughal 'shikargah motif. The kirach is simply a tulwar with a straight blade which ticks forward at the tip. Also, for further reference, which I have not yet consulted: "Sikh Heritage: Ethos & Relics" by Bhayee Sikander Singh and Roopinder Singh, p.146 A tulwar of Guru Gobind Singh of 18th c. with hunting scenes, which seems contradictory to the previous note on Sikhs using Hindu motif. Attached: Deccani tulwar Lahore kirach with shikarga blade Attached Images

17th February 2022, 12:36 PM	#3
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	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. Attached Images Last edited by Norman McCormick; 17th February 2022 at 02:55 PM.

18th February 2022, 07:01 AM	#7
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	A quite compelling argument that these tulwars with elaborately decorated blades were NOT actually used for hunting but were merely presentation swords is the condition of their edge. All the blades of this kind that I have seen, as well as the examples presented here, do not show any traces of use and resharpening on their edges, but have the intact, original edge geometry.