Help with possible Indian tulwar sword

Ian Crouch · 1st June 2006, 12:11 PM

Greetings,

I am trying to get some idea of the age and origin of a sword that I have come across. It looks very old and while the blade and hilt is slightly damaged and rusted the blade is in fact curved, and although rusted, surprisingly sharp. I am in the process of taking some better photos which I can post tomorrow if this will help with the id. Searches on the web have not come up with any similar "perforated baskets". Any ideas or help would be most appreciated.

Regards

Ian

RhysMichael · 1st June 2006, 02:06 PM

I have seen Khanda, Firangi and Tulwar with this style of hilt. I believe I was told they are mostly seen on Hindu swords but I am sure someone here will know better than I.

Jens Nordlunde · 1st June 2006, 05:43 PM

Hi Ian - welcome to the forum,
Any good picture would help, as well as measures - don't forget details

- looks interesting.
Jens

ariel · 1st June 2006, 06:02 PM

The style of the handguard looks South Indian, especially the pierced design.
I have a feeling that the blade is European: the fullers and, especially, the absence of the so-called Indian ricasso (blunt segment adjacent to the guard). Firanghi? Alemani? Any markings on the blade?

BTW, a question: the working part of any slashing sword is effectively limited to it's most distal third (at the most). The rest of the sword serves, in effect, like a lever. Why do all swords have a sharpened edge along the entire blade? It just invites more damage and weakens the parrying efficiency. The Indian ricasso was a very modest step in the more functional direction. Any swords that employ this principle to it's fullest? Or am I totally wrong?

Ian · 2nd June 2006, 01:23 AM

Hi Ian:

Welcome to the Forum. We can't have too many Ians!

I think you have an older example of the Moghul tulwar hilt with some transitional features between the Hindu basket hilt an the later tulwar form with the straight guard. I'm unsure whether one can say this is more likely to be southern or northern Indian in origin, although the sharply pointed central area of the handle is a feature that has been attributed to the Punjab.

This sword appears to have some considerable age but a picture of the complete sword would be helpful.

Ian.

Ian Crouch · 2nd June 2006, 09:12 AM

Greetings all - and thank you for the interesting comments and answers. I have attached some clearer photos that should possibly help to better establish an age and origin of the sword. Can anyone tell me if there was ever anything in the gap between the 'flanges' where the blade enters the hilt? Am I also correct in assuming that one shouldn't try and clean the sword further or try and straighten the bent end of the hand guard! All I have done to date is lightly remove the loose surface rust with some oil and 0000 grade steel wool. I look forward to any further comments and thoughts.

Regards

Ian

ariel · 2nd June 2006, 12:13 PM

You are not going to find wootz, so there is not much sense to polish the blade to a shiny perfection. As an example, per Elgood, Western collectors prefer patina, Arab collectors prefer shine. Matter of taste: do you want to emphasize sword's age and history or it's persistent functionality?

Ian · 5th June 2006, 03:33 PM

Hi Ian.

Nice job of cleaning this sword. Personally, I'd leave it the way it is and not polish the blade.

As far as age, I think it's probably 18th C -- maybe a little earlier. And I think Northern Indian in origin.

Ian.

Ian Crouch · 6th June 2006, 04:03 PM

Thank you to all those that have replied and who have helped me learn more about my tulwar sword. Looking at previous posts of similar swords, many appear to have the gap between the metal flanges and the blade (see last picture) and I assume therefore that this is representative of this type of sword and not indicative of a smaller replacement blade or missing part! I have also found small shavings of gold (leaf?) stuck at the base of the blade and wondered if parts of these swords were ever gold plated or if this could have originated from a previous battle! Any thoughts?

B.I · 7th June 2006, 12:36 AM

hi ian,
thanks for the email and sorry to have ignored your post. i can happily offer an opinion of your sword, but afraid it will be speculative as anything is on indian weapons. there is little written on early indian swords and what little there is goes not much further than basic terminology. however, i still feel much can be said of this piece.
i feel the sword is south indian, and of this i am pretty sure. it is probably 18thC and towards the earlier half, and more than likely maharathan. the overall style can only be south indian as it has not the asthetics of moghul nor rajput in form. they both had basket-hilted swords but they were of a different style, cleaner lines and less 'sculptural'. i put the word in inverted commas because the maharathan scultural form was crude in comparison to the kingdoms they surplanted.
i've given maharathan art a hard time in the past as i feel that they didnt contribute much themselves, when they had ample opportunity to (they formed a kingdom, with a centre and had enough time to leave their mark which they didnt). this comes from frustration as i find more information in earlier kingdoms than i can during their 'reign'.
they did, however, adopt the current style of sword and add their own asthetic to it. this hilt shows this in full glory. the maharathan style is a mixture of a 'developed' hindu and islamic southern slant. elgood shows much of this in his recent book, although he doesnt really cover the latter periods (past nayaka). nayakan style is very dominant and still evident in the architecture left behind. the maharathan kingdom was instilled in this same area and their style was an almost diluted version of the nayak. so, where the nayak took the full sculptural form from the bigger hindu kingdoms (vijiyanagara), the maharathan 'flattened' it off.
the guard on a 17thC hilt would be beaded and pierced. yours shows a latter version of this, where the beads are inscribed as apposed to relief chisselled and the piercing is nowhere near refined (more like perforations than symmetrical piercing - again, a maharathan feature).
please dont feel i am critisizing your hilt. i like it a lot, but am trying to validate my opinion and describe the maharathan features, or at least open up a chance to argue (debate) against it.
the 17thC hilt would be more zoomorphic, instead of lightly chisselled. your pommel is almost as typically maharathan as you can get (short, stumpy, leaning off to a 90 degree angle and ending in a lotus bud), and this is a feature that i really enjoy in these weapons. i like the lotus design terminals, used all over india, but with a certain style in the south (both in hindu and islamic weapons). i have seen this type pommel many times, and on tulwars as well as firangis. this shows in miniatures from the late 17thC and into the 18th, but then they tend to extend and become longer, giving rise to the opinion that they were meant for two-handed use (i dont agree at all i'm afraid).
most firangis of the south had the hilts riveted to the blades, but this wasnt always so.
i dont feel it could be later than 18thC as i have seen a few weapons taken from the last maharathan war (19thC) and these were cruder and not as distinct.
i didnt quite get your last question about the gap, but there is supposed to be a gap between the langets and the blade (like in tulwars) and this incorporates it's fit over the scabbard.
however, that said, i feel that your blade is not original to the hilt. the resin seems to have been removed and the gap where the blade sits in seems to go in too deeply.
i understand ian's (the other one) reference to the pointed grip section being of a northern origin (punjab). i think this information came from rawson, and it was never validated. i personally think this feature existed in both north and southern swords and was never specifically punjabi. rawson was more infuriating for the info he left out, that what he included. nothing existd in his notes, so anything stated without reference has to be ignored (such a shame!!!)
i like your sword a lot. the fact that the blade has possible been refitted (am guessing this) doesnt matter. the hilt is early, has good asthetics and is bulky, all features i look for in a good maharathan sword.
well done for aquiring such an interesting piece.

ariel · 7th June 2006, 12:51 AM

I agree with Brian 100%: Southern.
And the blade is a replacement: it seems to me that Indians tried to use spare parts. Blades, by definition, were more breakable than hilts and there was no sense to get rid of a perfectly good hilt.I still think there is a good possibility that the blade is European. The flanges were never attached to the blade: the distance between them is too wide and there are no rivet holes in them.
Very, very, very nice sword, and likely with a lot of history behind it!
Congratulations!

1st June 2006, 12:11 PM	#1
Ian Crouch Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4	Help with possible Indian tulwar sword Greetings, I am trying to get some idea of the age and origin of a sword that I have come across. It looks very old and while the blade and hilt is slightly damaged and rusted the blade is in fact curved, and although rusted, surprisingly sharp. I am in the process of taking some better photos which I can post tomorrow if this will help with the id. Searches on the web have not come up with any similar "perforated baskets". Any ideas or help would be most appreciated. Regards Ian Attached Images

2nd June 2006, 01:23 AM	#5
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,207	Welcome ... Hi Ian: Welcome to the Forum. We can't have too many Ians! I think you have an older example of the Moghul tulwar hilt with some transitional features between the Hindu basket hilt an the later tulwar form with the straight guard. I'm unsure whether one can say this is more likely to be southern or northern Indian in origin, although the sharply pointed central area of the handle is a feature that has been attributed to the Punjab. This sword appears to have some considerable age but a picture of the complete sword would be helpful. Ian.

2nd June 2006, 09:12 AM	#6
Ian Crouch Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4	Greetings all - and thank you for the interesting comments and answers. I have attached some clearer photos that should possibly help to better establish an age and origin of the sword. Can anyone tell me if there was ever anything in the gap between the 'flanges' where the blade enters the hilt? Am I also correct in assuming that one shouldn't try and clean the sword further or try and straighten the bent end of the hand guard! All I have done to date is lightly remove the loose surface rust with some oil and 0000 grade steel wool. I look forward to any further comments and thoughts. Regards Ian Attached Images

1st June 2006, 02:06 PM	#2
RhysMichael Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 520	I have seen Khanda, Firangi and Tulwar with this style of hilt. I believe I was told they are mostly seen on Hindu swords but I am sure someone here will know better than I.

1st June 2006, 05:43 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Ian - welcome to the forum, Any good picture would help, as well as measures - don't forget details - looks interesting. Jens

1st June 2006, 06:02 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The style of the handguard looks South Indian, especially the pierced design. I have a feeling that the blade is European: the fullers and, especially, the absence of the so-called Indian ricasso (blunt segment adjacent to the guard). Firanghi? Alemani? Any markings on the blade? BTW, a question: the working part of any slashing sword is effectively limited to it's most distal third (at the most). The rest of the sword serves, in effect, like a lever. Why do all swords have a sharpened edge along the entire blade? It just invites more damage and weakens the parrying efficiency. The Indian ricasso was a very modest step in the more functional direction. Any swords that employ this principle to it's fullest? Or am I totally wrong?

2nd June 2006, 12:13 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	You are not going to find wootz, so there is not much sense to polish the blade to a shiny perfection. As an example, per Elgood, Western collectors prefer patina, Arab collectors prefer shine. Matter of taste: do you want to emphasize sword's age and history or it's persistent functionality?

5th June 2006, 03:33 PM	#8
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,207	Hi Ian. Nice job of cleaning this sword. Personally, I'd leave it the way it is and not polish the blade. As far as age, I think it's probably 18th C -- maybe a little earlier. And I think Northern Indian in origin. Ian.

6th June 2006, 04:03 PM	#9
Ian Crouch Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4	Thank you to all those that have replied and who have helped me learn more about my tulwar sword. Looking at previous posts of similar swords, many appear to have the gap between the metal flanges and the blade (see last picture) and I assume therefore that this is representative of this type of sword and not indicative of a smaller replacement blade or missing part! I have also found small shavings of gold (leaf?) stuck at the base of the blade and wondered if parts of these swords were ever gold plated or if this could have originated from a previous battle! Any thoughts?

7th June 2006, 12:36 AM	#10
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi ian, thanks for the email and sorry to have ignored your post. i can happily offer an opinion of your sword, but afraid it will be speculative as anything is on indian weapons. there is little written on early indian swords and what little there is goes not much further than basic terminology. however, i still feel much can be said of this piece. i feel the sword is south indian, and of this i am pretty sure. it is probably 18thC and towards the earlier half, and more than likely maharathan. the overall style can only be south indian as it has not the asthetics of moghul nor rajput in form. they both had basket-hilted swords but they were of a different style, cleaner lines and less 'sculptural'. i put the word in inverted commas because the maharathan scultural form was crude in comparison to the kingdoms they surplanted. i've given maharathan art a hard time in the past as i feel that they didnt contribute much themselves, when they had ample opportunity to (they formed a kingdom, with a centre and had enough time to leave their mark which they didnt). this comes from frustration as i find more information in earlier kingdoms than i can during their 'reign'. they did, however, adopt the current style of sword and add their own asthetic to it. this hilt shows this in full glory. the maharathan style is a mixture of a 'developed' hindu and islamic southern slant. elgood shows much of this in his recent book, although he doesnt really cover the latter periods (past nayaka). nayakan style is very dominant and still evident in the architecture left behind. the maharathan kingdom was instilled in this same area and their style was an almost diluted version of the nayak. so, where the nayak took the full sculptural form from the bigger hindu kingdoms (vijiyanagara), the maharathan 'flattened' it off. the guard on a 17thC hilt would be beaded and pierced. yours shows a latter version of this, where the beads are inscribed as apposed to relief chisselled and the piercing is nowhere near refined (more like perforations than symmetrical piercing - again, a maharathan feature). please dont feel i am critisizing your hilt. i like it a lot, but am trying to validate my opinion and describe the maharathan features, or at least open up a chance to argue (debate) against it. the 17thC hilt would be more zoomorphic, instead of lightly chisselled. your pommel is almost as typically maharathan as you can get (short, stumpy, leaning off to a 90 degree angle and ending in a lotus bud), and this is a feature that i really enjoy in these weapons. i like the lotus design terminals, used all over india, but with a certain style in the south (both in hindu and islamic weapons). i have seen this type pommel many times, and on tulwars as well as firangis. this shows in miniatures from the late 17thC and into the 18th, but then they tend to extend and become longer, giving rise to the opinion that they were meant for two-handed use (i dont agree at all i'm afraid). most firangis of the south had the hilts riveted to the blades, but this wasnt always so. i dont feel it could be later than 18thC as i have seen a few weapons taken from the last maharathan war (19thC) and these were cruder and not as distinct. i didnt quite get your last question about the gap, but there is supposed to be a gap between the langets and the blade (like in tulwars) and this incorporates it's fit over the scabbard. however, that said, i feel that your blade is not original to the hilt. the resin seems to have been removed and the gap where the blade sits in seems to go in too deeply. i understand ian's (the other one) reference to the pointed grip section being of a northern origin (punjab). i think this information came from rawson, and it was never validated. i personally think this feature existed in both north and southern swords and was never specifically punjabi. rawson was more infuriating for the info he left out, that what he included. nothing existd in his notes, so anything stated without reference has to be ignored (such a shame!!!) i like your sword a lot. the fact that the blade has possible been refitted (am guessing this) doesnt matter. the hilt is early, has good asthetics and is bulky, all features i look for in a good maharathan sword. well done for aquiring such an interesting piece.

7th June 2006, 12:51 AM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I agree with Brian 100%: Southern. And the blade is a replacement: it seems to me that Indians tried to use spare parts. Blades, by definition, were more breakable than hilts and there was no sense to get rid of a perfectly good hilt.I still think there is a good possibility that the blade is European. The flanges were never attached to the blade: the distance between them is too wide and there are no rivet holes in them. Very, very, very nice sword, and likely with a lot of history behind it! Congratulations!