Tipu Sultan and the Tiger Head Pommel

Jim McDougall · 27th June 2007, 02:42 PM

Hi Olikara,
That is an excellent question!!! and in all honesty seems like the type of question that should be asked when studying the features in hilt forms, but in the years I have pursued this, nobody has ever noted it including me

On military swords, they typically follow a pattern which has a basic design and often with very subtle variations or features that seemed to have a degree of consistancy with individual makers who contracted to the govt.
The British M1796 light cavalry sabre for other ranks was one of the first truly 'regulation' patterns for them, and while these sabres were inclined to almost monotonous sameness, the officers had considerable latitude in ordering thier own custom swords.

The M1796 hilts were typically of forged iron, with other ranks being of course standard, and although officers sabres were as described, often custom made, they too were typically forged iron and followed the guidelines in so called 'stirrup hilt' with 'birds head' type pommel (meaning a smooth rounded pommel which smoothly carried down through the backstrap.
As Kronckew has noted, that 90 degree turn at the bottom of the knucklebow would most definitely be weakened, and though I am far from any expertise in metalwork or metallurgy, it seems a reinforcement would be the most likely explanation.

When casting brass hilts, I am not sure if there are similar dynamics as I believe the forged metal is worked, while the cast is not. In the case of the brass hilts, they were cast from a mold, which may have been from the original hilt form itself in this instance. The feature, though originally structural in the original, would carry through in the finished product .

I think Krockews very astute observation on these being positioning guides for a sword knot is also well placed, and again an idea I had not thought of. On the original M1796 sabres, there were usually slots on the knuckleguard for these knots, with the purpose he had described, however I have seen more decorative M1796 sabres with knots placed as he has noted.

All the best,
Jim

Rick · 27th June 2007, 04:46 PM

Here is that feature taken to the extreme as seen on a Parang Nabur .

Jim McDougall · 28th June 2007, 04:02 AM

Excellent example Rick!!!
This clearly illustrates the inflences of European edged weapons on the weapons of indiginous people, though I am unclear on exactly where the parang nabur is predominantly found. It seems most references assign these to Kalimantan (Borneo), but I presume other Malayan regions as well. One reference notes these originated probably from 'cutlasses' or sabres of Dutch naval forces. What period would likely be assigned to this example?

In any case, the exaggerated application of this feature decoratively seems most interesting as it is imitating what is believed a subtle structural feature in the original European sabres serving as examples.

This fascinating hybridization of weapons is one of the most intriguing areas in the study of ethnographic edged weapons, and often reflects the confluence of traditional native weapons with regulation military weapons. The hilt in discussion here appears as noted, a classic example!

All the best,
Jim

Rick · 28th June 2007, 02:30 PM

Hi Jim,
I can only guess that it may be late 19th - early 20th C.

Jim McDougall · 29th June 2007, 02:24 PM

Hi Rick,
Thanks again, and I agree with your assessment on that. These were indeed most attractive sabres, and I am wondering if they developed from a basic native form, or developed entirely from the influence of European sabres.

Getting back to the sabre hilt in discussion, since the swords in southern India seem to have favored the use of brass cast hilts, would this be a strong indicator that the hilt was fashioned there, using the distinct British hilt features? intended for a British officer?
Was there any sort of resistance or subversive movement after Tipu's defeat that may have tried to organize against the British occupation? Could this hilt have been fashioned intended for an individual in such a group or faction using the weapons at hand including the motif of Tipu's tiger?

Olikara, with your knowledge of the events of these times, do you think that idea plausible? If so, perhaps the hilt was made with intent for an organized movement, and the plans terminated possibly with counterinsurgence activity or something equivilent. That might explain the absence of the blade (does it appear a blade was originally present in this piece?).

All best regards,
Jim

olikara · 29th June 2007, 05:59 PM

Jim,

What you are suggesting could very well be true as far as an underground movement against against the British is concerned after the fall of Tipu. However this movement was limited to a flareup at Vellore, in another part of S. India, in 1803 where Tipu's immediate family was sent into exile. However, the British were very generous to the family and provided them with hefty pensions.

The Madras Sepoys stationed here mutinied and raised the Flag of Tipu Sultan at the fort, installing his son Fateh Haider as their leader. This mutiny was however crushed by elements of the British 19th Dragoons led by Gen. Rollo Gillespie. The 19th Dragoons had also seen action at Seringapatam in 1799.

However this being said, this revolt or movement pales into insignificance when we compare it with the events of 1857-The Great Mutiny.

That was about all the resistance that sympathizers to Tipu's rule could muster. The British had played their cards well handing out heavy pensions to all in Tipu's extended family and his circle of officers who had survived 1799. They had also restored to the throne the Hindu boy king whose ancestors 3 generations ago had ruled over Mysore. They also had made over large chunks of Mysore territory to the Marathas and the Nizam. Thus they gave no or limited scope to any Indian group to rebel.

I do not see any reason why the resistance should have designed hilts with a hybrid of Tipu and British features. In all probability they would have stuck to Tipu's alone unless of course, they saw that this hybrid variety was in some way technically superior to the traditional one. In any case, there are no written or contemporary records pertaining to any of the rebels of that time using Tipuesque weapons. Maybe they still carried weapons on them that they had used even during Tipu's time.

Rather, could the hilt be the influence of the French, who we know greatly admired the 1796 issue and I have read complained about the savage wounds it inflicted, and cast during Tipu's time itself.

As for the blade, I can see a faint discoloration that looks wedge shaped and seems like part of a blade on one side of the quillon. This portion is also slightly sticky to feel. I can also see something that is soft to touch and feels and looks like resin or gum in the hollow portion where the tang goes. I have marked it for you.

One of the langets is broken and maybe it broke off while someone was trying to pull out the blade from the hilt. It seems to me that someone tried to bend the blade along it's width thus taking it out, maybe as he wanted it to, and one of the langets along with it. What do you think?

Jim McDougall · 30th June 2007, 05:16 AM

Olikara,
Outstanding description of post-Seringpatam southern India, and the situation with the British occupation. Thank you so much for the detail !
It sounds as if the diplomatic efforts of the British favoring Tipu's family and ranking elements of his forces might feasibly have led to a sword, or even a group of such hybrid sabres being fashioned there. While obviously it is unclear how such sabres might have been intended, there does seem to be evidence that the well established Tipu motif, now proudly known by the people there might have been favored in this climate.

Just speculating, and clearly you would have a much better perspective on this possibility with your knowledge and understanding of these events. This truly is a mystery hilt, and becomes more fascinating as we try to discover what it is trying to tell us.

Although your note on the French possibility seems quite plausible (we know that French advisors were there with Haider Ali), the elements of the hilt I have noted (langets, quillon) are distinctly British. The French also had stirrup hilts (also termed D-guard) but these had soundly different form in these. I do know what you are saying on the French thoughts on the M1796, which they termed 'barbaric' in thier use at Waterloo, which was of course some time later.

From your observations on the hilt at the tang aperture, it does seem like a blade was once mounted, and the damage in the missing langet does sound related to the attempts in removing the blade. It was clearly done by someone that was anything but an armourer, and it makes me wonder why it was removed. Could something unfavorable have been on the blade? perhaps an inscription or patriotic slogan, or other? It seems as if the blade was rather brutally removed...but then why wouldnt the entire sword be destroyed?

More questions than answers....but then...the games afoot!!!

All the best,
Jim

27th June 2007, 04:46 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,289	Here is that feature taken to the extreme as seen on a Parang Nabur . Attached Images

28th June 2007, 02:30 PM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,289	As To Age ... Hi Jim, I can only guess that it may be late 19th - early 20th C.

29th June 2007, 05:59 PM	#6
olikara Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: India Posts: 100	Jim, What you are suggesting could very well be true as far as an underground movement against against the British is concerned after the fall of Tipu. However this movement was limited to a flareup at Vellore, in another part of S. India, in 1803 where Tipu's immediate family was sent into exile. However, the British were very generous to the family and provided them with hefty pensions. The Madras Sepoys stationed here mutinied and raised the Flag of Tipu Sultan at the fort, installing his son Fateh Haider as their leader. This mutiny was however crushed by elements of the British 19th Dragoons led by Gen. Rollo Gillespie. The 19th Dragoons had also seen action at Seringapatam in 1799. However this being said, this revolt or movement pales into insignificance when we compare it with the events of 1857-The Great Mutiny. That was about all the resistance that sympathizers to Tipu's rule could muster. The British had played their cards well handing out heavy pensions to all in Tipu's extended family and his circle of officers who had survived 1799. They had also restored to the throne the Hindu boy king whose ancestors 3 generations ago had ruled over Mysore. They also had made over large chunks of Mysore territory to the Marathas and the Nizam. Thus they gave no or limited scope to any Indian group to rebel. I do not see any reason why the resistance should have designed hilts with a hybrid of Tipu and British features. In all probability they would have stuck to Tipu's alone unless of course, they saw that this hybrid variety was in some way technically superior to the traditional one. In any case, there are no written or contemporary records pertaining to any of the rebels of that time using Tipuesque weapons. Maybe they still carried weapons on them that they had used even during Tipu's time. Rather, could the hilt be the influence of the French, who we know greatly admired the 1796 issue and I have read complained about the savage wounds it inflicted, and cast during Tipu's time itself. As for the blade, I can see a faint discoloration that looks wedge shaped and seems like part of a blade on one side of the quillon. This portion is also slightly sticky to feel. I can also see something that is soft to touch and feels and looks like resin or gum in the hollow portion where the tang goes. I have marked it for you. One of the langets is broken and maybe it broke off while someone was trying to pull out the blade from the hilt. It seems to me that someone tried to bend the blade along it's width thus taking it out, maybe as he wanted it to, and one of the langets along with it. What do you think? Attached Images

27th June 2007, 02:42 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,931	Hi Olikara, That is an excellent question!!! and in all honesty seems like the type of question that should be asked when studying the features in hilt forms, but in the years I have pursued this, nobody has ever noted it including me On military swords, they typically follow a pattern which has a basic design and often with very subtle variations or features that seemed to have a degree of consistancy with individual makers who contracted to the govt. The British M1796 light cavalry sabre for other ranks was one of the first truly 'regulation' patterns for them, and while these sabres were inclined to almost monotonous sameness, the officers had considerable latitude in ordering thier own custom swords. The M1796 hilts were typically of forged iron, with other ranks being of course standard, and although officers sabres were as described, often custom made, they too were typically forged iron and followed the guidelines in so called 'stirrup hilt' with 'birds head' type pommel (meaning a smooth rounded pommel which smoothly carried down through the backstrap. As Kronckew has noted, that 90 degree turn at the bottom of the knucklebow would most definitely be weakened, and though I am far from any expertise in metalwork or metallurgy, it seems a reinforcement would be the most likely explanation. When casting brass hilts, I am not sure if there are similar dynamics as I believe the forged metal is worked, while the cast is not. In the case of the brass hilts, they were cast from a mold, which may have been from the original hilt form itself in this instance. The feature, though originally structural in the original, would carry through in the finished product . I think Krockews very astute observation on these being positioning guides for a sword knot is also well placed, and again an idea I had not thought of. On the original M1796 sabres, there were usually slots on the knuckleguard for these knots, with the purpose he had described, however I have seen more decorative M1796 sabres with knots placed as he has noted. All the best, Jim

28th June 2007, 04:02 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,931	Excellent example Rick!!! This clearly illustrates the inflences of European edged weapons on the weapons of indiginous people, though I am unclear on exactly where the parang nabur is predominantly found. It seems most references assign these to Kalimantan (Borneo), but I presume other Malayan regions as well. One reference notes these originated probably from 'cutlasses' or sabres of Dutch naval forces. What period would likely be assigned to this example? In any case, the exaggerated application of this feature decoratively seems most interesting as it is imitating what is believed a subtle structural feature in the original European sabres serving as examples. This fascinating hybridization of weapons is one of the most intriguing areas in the study of ethnographic edged weapons, and often reflects the confluence of traditional native weapons with regulation military weapons. The hilt in discussion here appears as noted, a classic example! All the best, Jim

29th June 2007, 02:24 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,931	Hi Rick, Thanks again, and I agree with your assessment on that. These were indeed most attractive sabres, and I am wondering if they developed from a basic native form, or developed entirely from the influence of European sabres. Getting back to the sabre hilt in discussion, since the swords in southern India seem to have favored the use of brass cast hilts, would this be a strong indicator that the hilt was fashioned there, using the distinct British hilt features? intended for a British officer? Was there any sort of resistance or subversive movement after Tipu's defeat that may have tried to organize against the British occupation? Could this hilt have been fashioned intended for an individual in such a group or faction using the weapons at hand including the motif of Tipu's tiger? Olikara, with your knowledge of the events of these times, do you think that idea plausible? If so, perhaps the hilt was made with intent for an organized movement, and the plans terminated possibly with counterinsurgence activity or something equivilent. That might explain the absence of the blade (does it appear a blade was originally present in this piece?). All best regards, Jim

30th June 2007, 05:16 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,931	Olikara, Outstanding description of post-Seringpatam southern India, and the situation with the British occupation. Thank you so much for the detail ! It sounds as if the diplomatic efforts of the British favoring Tipu's family and ranking elements of his forces might feasibly have led to a sword, or even a group of such hybrid sabres being fashioned there. While obviously it is unclear how such sabres might have been intended, there does seem to be evidence that the well established Tipu motif, now proudly known by the people there might have been favored in this climate. Just speculating, and clearly you would have a much better perspective on this possibility with your knowledge and understanding of these events. This truly is a mystery hilt, and becomes more fascinating as we try to discover what it is trying to tell us. Although your note on the French possibility seems quite plausible (we know that French advisors were there with Haider Ali), the elements of the hilt I have noted (langets, quillon) are distinctly British. The French also had stirrup hilts (also termed D-guard) but these had soundly different form in these. I do know what you are saying on the French thoughts on the M1796, which they termed 'barbaric' in thier use at Waterloo, which was of course some time later. From your observations on the hilt at the tang aperture, it does seem like a blade was once mounted, and the damage in the missing langet does sound related to the attempts in removing the blade. It was clearly done by someone that was anything but an armourer, and it makes me wonder why it was removed. Could something unfavorable have been on the blade? perhaps an inscription or patriotic slogan, or other? It seems as if the blade was rather brutally removed...but then why wouldnt the entire sword be destroyed? More questions than answers....but then...the games afoot!!! All the best, Jim