Good Fighting Tulwar for Review and Commentary

[Stan S.]

Here is one of the latest additions to my collection. I’ve had this sword for a month or two and love it! What attracted me to it was a heavy blade of unusually low curvature with well pronounced yelman. This thing is almost straight, yet single edged with a sharp false edge extending 1/3 of the blade. The blade also bears a distinct mark associated with Bikaner armoury. The hilt is slightly smaller than average (even comparing to the normally “tight” tulwar hilts), and although quite simple it is nicely done. My guess would be an early 19th century Punjab or some other northern province but if anyone has a different opinion on its locale and age, I would love to hear it. The only downside is that the hilt has a little bit of movement. I am planning to eventually make an experiment of replacing the resin on this and a couple of other loose hilt tulwars that I have but need to build up some courage first before I can risk dissassembling my babies

[Atlantia]

Hi Stan

I've got a couple of similar arsenal Tulwars with those dot markings on the blades.
The markings were thought to be Bikaner armoury markings.

[Stan S.]

Yep, they are Bikaner markings alright. I also have an unusual Indian cut-down spear/sword catcher in my collection with similar markings.

Atlantia: It's interesting how on your swords the first 7 or 8 characters are the same and the last 3 or 4 are different (I am reading from left to right - is thsi teh correct way?)

Does anyone know how to read these inscriptions? What language are they in? My guess is Punjabi but I can't be too sure. Are they likely to represent anything other than just inventory numbers?

[Lew]

Probably Bikinar from the markings I have one with the same markings.

[Jim McDougall]

Stan, this appears to be a solid fighting tulwar as you have already well described, and I think your date assessment is well in range. The dotted script characters also as you and Gene have noted are typically attributed to the armory at Bikaner. This is actually one of the few instances with Indian arms where we can establish a distinct marking characteristic to a particular armoury or location.

Bikaner is located in northwest Rajasthan, which as you have also established is indeed in Northwest India. It is important to note that because the blade is marked with these distinctive dotted characters of the armoury at Junargh Fort there, it means the weapon was one held there, not necessarily made or used there. Probably one of the largest hoards of captured arms and armour was brought there by Maharajah Anup Singh from the seige of Adoni in 1689 far to the southeast in India.

While your tulwar is characteristically simple in its styling as a fighting weapon probably intended to equip other ranks, the fleuret shaped quillon terminals are generally considered to be a feature of Mughal edged weapons. Most tulwars either Rajput or those to the east in Punjab regions will typically have the domed quillon terminals. Rajput and Sikh tulwars also usually are with knuckleguard. Naturally there are many exceptions and variations, and despite cases where regional attribution is suggested, typically unless specifically provenanced these are difficult to substantiate conclusively.


Excellent example and good solid piece!!!

All best regards,
Jim

[Stan S.]

Jim, could you please elaborate on "Sikh tulwars also usually are with knuckleguard"? I was under an impression that Sikhs used a wide viriety of weapons and favored both knuckleguarded tulwar hilts and teh ones without a guard.

Also, I am curious as to what purpose was a wide, heavy and relatively straight blade intended for (like the ones pictured in this thread), as opposed to the shamshir-like type that are thinner and of a more pronounced curvature? Was it just a personal preference dictated by one's chosen fighting style? Aesthetics? Or something else?

[Lew]

Hi Stan

In theory there are really no true Sikh tulwars they really incorporated many of the standard styles swords of that time to use in battle. On the other hand there are certain hilt styles that you do see a lot when looking at tulwars owned by prominent Sikh warriors and Gurus of the past. Below is an example of the type of hilt (Diamond shape protrusions) often seen on Sikh tulwars. In my opinion this is more an indicator than the use of a knuckle guard.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Stan S.

Jim, could you please elaborate on "Sikh tulwars also usually are with knuckleguard"? I was under an impression that Sikhs used a wide viriety of weapons and favored both knuckleguarded tulwar hilts and teh ones without a guard.

Also, I am curious as to what purpose was a wide, heavy and relatively straight blade intended for (like the ones pictured in this thread), as opposed to the shamshir-like type that are thinner and of a more pronounced curvature? Was it just a personal preference dictated by one's chosen fighting style? Aesthetics? Or something else?

Thank you very much Stan, both for the response and especially the questions. Regarding my comment of knuckleguarded tulwars and attribution to Sikhs could have been better worded. As has been noted, the weapons used by the Sikhs are widely varied, and as I was wryly once told by a Sikh, "if a weapon was used by a Sikh....then it is Sikh". In the research I did trying to find specific markings, symbols or characteristics distinctive to Sikh weapons, I found none answering that description definitively. Probably the only definite identifier would be inscription in gurmukhi script, which does not seem commonly used in this manner on weapons. As always I would welcome information to the contrary. The manner of hilt shown in Lews post is typically recognized as in the Udaipur style (in Rajasthan) and in this case of course likely 19th century. The diamond shape grip and the elongated rectangular langet are characteristic. Note the 'Indian ricasso' on the blade, a sound identifier of Indian blades, where shamshirs of course are without this feature. In India, many princely weapons were mounted with these Persian blades. The diamond grip in this case is no more an indicator of a Sikh weapon than any other feature. These type hilts are however relatively much more common, and recognized as relatively recent, even modern. The use of edged weapons in Sikh ceremonies, martial arts and religious observation is well established and many of these are likely found in these circumstances perhaps bring that perception .

The variations in tulwar pertaining to presence of knuckleguard vs. the absence of one seems, like with blades, largely preferential. I have personally always had an opinion that examples without guard were likely more of a courtly nature, where the guard of course was for protection in combat. Obviously this simplistic view is tenuous at best, as there are so many variations as to defeat that concept without too much effort. Also, with these examples the blades are clearly heavy fighting types, and the simple brass hilts obviously too austere for court weapons. Therefore my suggestion for court use would be better guaged on each weapon observed in context.

In G.N.Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour" New Delhi, 1980, p.104), the author describing the tulwar notes on the blades, "...there are all kinds of slightly curved blades and they vary enormously in size, curvature and quality".
Obviously an enormously broad statement, but finding enough consistancy to establish more clear axioms is a seemingly impossible task for Indian arms, still it is possible in many cases to evaluate a weapon collectively and by observed merits to plausibly suggest origins and use.

Regarding the straighter, or quite shallow curve, I would say of course yes, preference, aesthetics no. The use of a straight blade seems to have been a marked preference of the Marathas in southwest and central India, the Deccan. Considering the vast movements of the Marathas it is of course expected to find hybridization. It is claimed that the straight blade tulwar is termed the 'sukhela' and the term is presumed to derive from the Indian steel known as sakhela. In the Deccan, the more local term for this type blade on a sword was 'dhup'. Obviously in the case of hilt styles, it is emphatically a matter of preference locally and blades move about widely, much as is always the case as we well know.

Thank you again Stan for posting these!

All best regards,
Jim

[Stan S.]

Jim, my thoughts exactly. I too have heard of or read about the theory that tulwar hilts featuring a diamond grip, longer quillons and simple rectangular langets are associated with sikhs but I wouldn't even venture a guess as to why.

I appreciate your input on the possible applications of the shallow curvature blade and agree that it is definitely not suited to be a dress sword - it is way too heavy and long to be comfortably worn as an accessory.

[Jim McDougall]

Stan, thank you so much for responding to my post. Very much appreciated indeed.

All the very best,
Jim

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Stan S.

Yep, they are Bikaner markings alright. I also have an unusual Indian cut-down spear/sword catcher in my collection with similar markings.

Atlantia: It's interesting how on your swords the first 7 or 8 characters are the same and the last 3 or 4 are different (I am reading from left to right - is thsi teh correct way?)

Does anyone know how to read these inscriptions? What language are they in? My guess is Punjabi but I can't be too sure. Are they likely to represent anything other than just inventory numbers?

Hi Stan,

These Tulwar are no-nonsense, no frills fighting swords!
I've got a few tulwar and these two feel quite different to 'heft'. The broad blades are somewhat front heavy. Mine are very sharp, and feel like proper 'hack & slay' swords.
I assume the inscriptions are inventory numbers as you say.
Here are Hindi numerals for you to have a look at.

Best
Gene

[Jens Nordlunde]

The dot markings are a combination of letters and numbers.
Jens

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The dot markings are a combination of letters and numbers.
Jens

Thank you Jens,
Do you know if they simply relate to inventory?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Its an interesting question, and if I have to be honest I must say, no I don’t know if they are armoury inventory numbers, or at least not armoury numbers like Europeans regard such numbers.

We know that Raja Anup Singh (1638-1698) fought for the Mughals in Deccan, and destroyed many towns and forts, amongst these was Adoni at the end of 1600. We also know that Anup Singh brought a lot of old manuscripts, paintings, weapons and other valuable things to Bikaner. According to descriptions, the booty must have been enormous, and that is why they, in Bikaner, to day have a very fine library with old manuscripts.

We don’t know how many weapons Anup Singh brought back, but he can hardly have seen them, as he was appointed governor after he had taken most of Deccan, and died there about twenty years later. A lot of the weapons, if not the greatest part, in the Bikaner armoury to day, are from Adoni and other places in Deccan, and we know, that many if not all of these weapons are dot marked, but we don’t know why or when. It is said that dot marking was used in other places as well, so a dot mark can point towards Bikaner, but it does not have to.

I hope the table with numerals can help you further.

Jens

[Stan S.]

Good stuff! When I have teh time I'll try to figure out what the stamp on my sword says.

I very much doubt that my tulwar is from the original Anup Singh's bounty, as it is clearly of a later date than the seexteen hundreds. However, this is all very interesting never the less. Thanks