My first Tulwar

[ariel]

OK, I'll take a stab
Based on my limited knowledge, the handle is Delhishani style, the quillons are slanted downward, suggesting older example ( 18th cen?), the blade is of local manufacture and seems to be shorter than usual cavalry weapons. The heavily incised blade was often a hunting one, but those had mostly animal figures. This one may not be a Tulwar Shikargar, but rather a fighting one. Look for damascus pattern.
Hey, Indian specialists, do I get a "gentleman's C"?

[Battara]

Ariel, I agree in that I think there is a damascus or wootz pattern under the patina.

I was first thinking hunting - did military have incised work like this too?

[fernando]

Thank you Ariel,
Thank you Battara,
You just caught me trying to digest Ariel's kind coments, as i wasn't familiar with some of the terms. I now found " Shikargaha" in Tirris's Islamic Weapons, and as for "Delhishani", i wonder if it derives from Delhi .
I am happy, for a start, that this piece isn't some kind of a knock off. Also its probable age is a great score for me.
As for possible patterns on the blade, i can see none, with my unexperienced eyes. I am posting a picture of the other side, which is less oxided, and looking apparently of plain steel.
What i can see are a few traces of silver on the hilt, remnants of some koftgari.
I wish the engravings, not being animals, could still be decodeable.
What do you gentlemen think of it ?
Thanks again
fernando

[ariel]

Try to polish it with 600-800 grit and then etch it.
You may be pleasantly surprised

[fernando]

I don't know if i have the guts to embark onto such adventure
Naturally i would like to see the result, but i am afraid for limitations .

[Lew]

Fernando

I would just leave it be. My limited experience with these types of swords is that they are usually regular steel and looking at yours I see no reason to risk screwing up the patina. It is a very lovely example.


Congrats

Lew

[Jim McDougall]

I think you have done well again Fernando!
I would give Ariel a high grade in his assessment of this tulwar (if I were an Indian specialist The term 'Delhishahi' if I am not mistaken derives from the Pant typology on Indian hilts ("Indian Arms & Armour" Dr. G.N.Pant, 1980)and this hilt may be considered by that term using that reference. While the term may suggest Delhi as the region for the origins of the hilt form, the actual categorization of tulwar hilt forms by region remains unresolved, and Dr.Pant's work remains an important benchmark for future studies. The book itself I still consider a most valuable resource for the comprehensive data it contains on Indian weaponry.

I would agree that this is likely a late 18th-early 19th c. tulwar probably Rajput and most likely from Rajasthan regions. I am inclined to doubt that the blade is wootz, and agree completely with Lew, leave the patination alone.
The incised motif is indeed often seen on hunting weapons (shikargaha) with images of animals , and figures of the Hindu pantheon are often on blades in low relief on sacrificial weapons. While this does not appear to be such a weapon it may have been intended as a court or parade weapon, but the floral /vegetal motif is unclear. Botanical symbolism was key in varying application in Hindu symbolism and is beautifully described in Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual" , so perhaps closer analysis of the depictions on this blade might reveal more.

Does the motif only appear on one side of the blade Fernando?

Best regards,
Jim