Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion

tom hyle · 19th February 2005, 05:36 AM

Ordinarily, each quillon has a sort of tang, and these are welded or soldered in between the two halves of the hilt.

RSWORD · 19th February 2005, 02:20 PM

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the reference to Egerton. Yes, the quillons and guard are welded on but I do not believe they are later additions. The gold koftari on both match the grip quite well both in decoration and patina. It is interesting that the example I found in Buttin and the example you found in Egerton have the same grip but different guards and/or quillon. However, I was doing more digging through my references and ran across another example. This one has the exact same hilt but with shamshir blade. It is from an art musuem display from the 1970's. The only description they give for the sword is Mughal sword, 18th century. Here is the pic of the example

Jeff D · 19th February 2005, 03:15 PM

Hi Rick

Well, you certainly do have a mystery. On both pieces shown, the quillions appear welded on. Why? They are both very well made, certainly the smith was capable of making it from a single block, or masking the weld. I will see if I can find any more examples.

Jeff

tom hyle · 19th February 2005, 04:18 PM

Here is a man who has never taken apart a tulwar, I think

They usually make the hilt in two hollow-backed shells, welded together, usually by a copper based solder (brazed), each half/shell is cross-shaped, and the arms, as well as the long leg are hollow (the "head" if you will, is flatter, thinner and forms the lagnets. The "leg" becomes the handle, and is also joined to the disc pommel, which may be made of as many as 4 or 5 pieces itself; the hollow remains hollow, to be filled with the pitch adhesive that holds the tang. Each hollow "arm" on the welded/soldered/brazed-up finished hilt is filled with basically a huge round nail. The nail-head (as it were) becomes the swelled tip of the quillon, while the nail itself (and mind you it isn't really a nail, but a purpose-made piece) fills the hollow quillons for part or all of their length. That is the usual tulwar hilt, and yeah, you're right; this ain't quite it that we're seeing here; it's certainly a variation, I'd say. The Turkish cross-shaped hilt may be structured differently, as well as Persian, kaskara ones, Swahili/Arab ones I've seen were split out of a single block, but with a small opening, requiring a seperate ferule. Oops; my shower's gonna run cold!

tom hyle · 19th February 2005, 04:36 PM

Now, the Lumad metal hilts are lost-wax-cast one piece brass, thick-walled, with a smaller hollow center, allowing a thin layer of adhesive between tang and hilt. They are said to be made by the women. Piso pedang report, please? African brass hilts; cast-on as usually said?

Jeff D · 19th February 2005, 04:38 PM

Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself.
I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples.

All the best
Jeff

RSWORD · 19th February 2005, 11:58 PM

Jeff

A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts.

B.I · 20th February 2005, 10:17 AM

hey rick,
sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions

and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in.
the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here.
the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well.
i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources

. i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar.
the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions.
i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply.

19th February 2005, 02:20 PM	#2
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,089	Hi Jeff, Thanks for the reference to Egerton. Yes, the quillons and guard are welded on but I do not believe they are later additions. The gold koftari on both match the grip quite well both in decoration and patina. It is interesting that the example I found in Buttin and the example you found in Egerton have the same grip but different guards and/or quillon. However, I was doing more digging through my references and ran across another example. This one has the exact same hilt but with shamshir blade. It is from an art musuem display from the 1970's. The only description they give for the sword is Mughal sword, 18th century. Here is the pic of the example Attached Images

19th February 2005, 04:18 PM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Here is a man who has never taken apart a tulwar, I think They usually make the hilt in two hollow-backed shells, welded together, usually by a copper based solder (brazed), each half/shell is cross-shaped, and the arms, as well as the long leg are hollow (the "head" if you will, is flatter, thinner and forms the lagnets. The "leg" becomes the handle, and is also joined to the disc pommel, which may be made of as many as 4 or 5 pieces itself; the hollow remains hollow, to be filled with the pitch adhesive that holds the tang. Each hollow "arm" on the welded/soldered/brazed-up finished hilt is filled with basically a huge round nail. The nail-head (as it were) becomes the swelled tip of the quillon, while the nail itself (and mind you it isn't really a nail, but a purpose-made piece) fills the hollow quillons for part or all of their length. That is the usual tulwar hilt, and yeah, you're right; this ain't quite it that we're seeing here; it's certainly a variation, I'd say. The Turkish cross-shaped hilt may be structured differently, as well as Persian, kaskara ones, Swahili/Arab ones I've seen were split out of a single block, but with a small opening, requiring a seperate ferule. Oops; my shower's gonna run cold! Last edited by tom hyle; 19th February 2005 at 04:33 PM.

20th February 2005, 10:17 AM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hey rick, sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in. the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here. the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well. i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources . i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar. the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions. i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply. Attached Images

19th February 2005, 05:36 AM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Ordinarily, each quillon has a sort of tang, and these are welded or soldered in between the two halves of the hilt.

19th February 2005, 03:15 PM	#3
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Rick Well, you certainly do have a mystery. On both pieces shown, the quillions appear welded on. Why? They are both very well made, certainly the smith was capable of making it from a single block, or masking the weld. I will see if I can find any more examples. Jeff

19th February 2005, 04:36 PM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Now, the Lumad metal hilts are lost-wax-cast one piece brass, thick-walled, with a smaller hollow center, allowing a thin layer of adhesive between tang and hilt. They are said to be made by the women. Piso pedang report, please? African brass hilts; cast-on as usually said?

19th February 2005, 04:38 PM	#6
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself. I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples. All the best Jeff

19th February 2005, 11:58 PM	#7
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,089	Jeff A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts.