Indian Tulwar

[mrcjgscott]

Hello all,

I recently picked up this tulwar from a friend of mine. Not my usual fare it has to be said, but I was struck by the quality of the blade, being quite different from any tulwar I have owned before.

The blade is triple fullered, 31.5 inches long, and very flexible. The hilt has at one time been decorated with gold, although a large portion has worn off, leaving the majority on the pommel.

If anybody could give me any more information or background about the piece, I would be most grateful.

Kind regards,

Chris

[Rick]

We can't help you unless you upload some pictures to the site .

[mrcjgscott]

Thanks Rick,

I realised as I pressed the "Submit Reply" button that I had forgotten the attachments, but as my posts are still moderated before being published, I couldn't remedy my mistake!!

[mrcjgscott]

Herewith the pictures!

[Rick]

A bump for comments .

[mrcjgscott]

Many thanks for your help Rick!

[Jim McDougall]

This is a VERY nice example Chris!
The hilt on this is of a distinct form which I believe was from Rajasthan, but cannot recall more offhand. The raised quadrant lines and floral center on the guard, and the vertically fluted grip (I believe designed after a type of urn or jar).
Jens is the resident authority on these, and it was his research which revealed more distinct history and details on this rather unique form.
The blade is Indian (with the 'Indian ricasso' at the end of blade near hilt) and the triple fullering taken primarily from the many European trade blades into these regions.
I would say this is easily mid to end of 18th into early 19th , and with the koftgari remnants though now missing, revealing the authentic age of this tulwar, a very nice example indeed!

[mrcjgscott]

Many thanks for taking the time to post this up Jim, very interesting stuff!

I can see exactly what you are saying about the vase/urn influence to the grip. Great to think it might be slightly earlier than I thought, that is always good to hear.

With regard to the koftgari decoration, what sort of "rank" of person would have owned a tulwar such as this? I have seen magnificent pieces in places like the Wallace Collection, but I always like to think about who the original owner might have been.

My field of expertise is more with European, especially British arms, but I do have a good Indian sword made for a European, by way of thanks I shall post it here once I return home next week.

Kind regards,

Chris

[sirupate]

Lovely Tulwar Scott, great info as usual from Jim McDougall, it will be interesting to see what Jens comes up with

[Jens Nordlunde]

In Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition, vol. II, plate LVII, Hendley shows four hilts.

From left to right he writes. “Damascened in gold. 1 and 5, made at Sirohi; 2, made at Gujrat, Kabul fashion; 3, made at Gujrat; 4, Indian hilt made at Gujrat.”

This is, of course, interesting as the book was published in 1883. These hilts were likely to have been new at the time, as the craftsmen wanted to show their ability, and when older things are shown at the exhibition Hendley writes so.

It is a pity that he does not explain what makes no 2 of Kabul fashion. But had he thought that we about 230 years later studied his books, not knowing what he meant, I feel sure he would have explained it.

Hendley may have been right, but take it with a grain of salt, as he may have been told from where the hilts came, and written what he had been told – what if what he was told was not correct? So what do we believe in? I would believe in Hendley, until I can prove he was wrong.

This means that whatever you read, always put a smaller or bigger question mark behind the answer.

In this case Hendley has written the text himself, and not copied it from other books, this is why I think the we can put a small question mark behind his text.

I am at the moment, on and off, researching another hilt type, which, with a bit of luck, will show to be in the 'family'.

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition, vol. II, plate LVII, Hendley shows four hilts.

From left to right he writes. “Damascened in gold. 1 and 5, made at Sirohi; 2, made at Gujrat, Kabul fashion; 3, made at Gujrat; 4, Indian hilt made at Gujrat.”

This is, of course, interesting as the book was published in 1883. These hilts were likely to have been new at the time, as the craftsmen wanted to show their ability, and when older things are shown at the exhibition Hendley writes so.

It is a pity that he does not explain what makes no 2 of Kabul fashion. But had he thought that we about 230 years later studied his books, not knowing what he meant, I feel sure he would have explained it.

Hendley may have been right, but take it with a grain of salt, as he may have been told from where the hilts came, and written what he had been told – what if what he was told was not correct? So what do we believe in? I would believe in Hendley, until I can prove he was wrong.

This means that whatever you read, always put a smaller or bigger question mark behind the answer.

In this case Hendley has written the text himself, and not copied it from other books, this is why I think the we can put a small question mark behind his text.

I am at the moment, on and off, researching another hilt type, which, with a bit of luck, will show to be in the 'family'.

Dear Jens,

Many thanks indeed for taking the time to share this information, very interesting indeed, even to a layman like myself.

I understand your caveat about taking what is written with a grain of salt, something I try to do with every source I read. It is always best to remain open minded, even when the conclusion seems foregone!

Having handled several ordinary tulwars, I was struck by how lively and purposeful this one felt in the hand, even the grip accommodates my hand comfortably (usually my fingers feel squashed within the guard!)

I wish you every success with your ongoing research.

Kind regards,

Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Chris, you are most welcome, and it is extremely rewarding to see someone approaching the often daunting field of Indian arms with such a genuinely investigative approach.
I am as always glad to see Jens add the outstanding perspective he constantly shares here on these fascinating swords.

As he well notes, many sources on these arms are written many years ago, and by those who were amidst the sphere of the British Raj. In this vast colonial network, there was considerable diffusion of weapon forms and decorative styles. It seems these writers did pretty well keeping in mind that the constant exhibitions, durbars and various key events brought together all of these elements quite typically outside their regular context.

As Jens notes, the grain of salt caveat is of course a standard with this in mind, but these sources do present a worthwhile benchmark to look for consistancies with which to establish more defined classifications.

As you note, the size of the grip is often noticeably small for our western hands, a topic often discussed on these pages over the years.
It has often been held that the so called 'Indian ricasso' I mentioned was specifically to allow for the forefinger to extend over the quillon and avoid being cut by the blade near the hilt.
Many disagree, however it is pointed out that tulwar combat seldom had sword to sword contact, parrying was with the dhal (shield).

As for the koftgari decoration, it would be difficult to assess the status or station of one having such quality swords, but broadly they could be seen as courtly weapons as these retinues were considerable throughout so many regions in India.

[sirupate]

A good vid by Matt Easton on the way to use the Tulwar hilt
About the Tulwar Handle

[spiral]

I love it when my mornings prophecy's are proved true in the evening!

[Ian]

Sorry Spiral, I don't understand your comment. Can you explain how it relates to this thread?

Ian

Originally Posted by spiral

I love it when my mornings prophecy's are proved true in the evening!

[spiral]

Certainly Ian, It was a joke for Chris , Ill send you a PM.

spiral

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Chris, you are most welcome, and it is extremely rewarding to see someone approaching the often daunting field of Indian arms with such a genuinely investigative approach.
I am as always glad to see Jens add the outstanding perspective he constantly shares here on these fascinating swords.

As he well notes, many sources on these arms are written many years ago, and by those who were amidst the sphere of the British Raj. In this vast colonial network, there was considerable diffusion of weapon forms and decorative styles. It seems these writers did pretty well keeping in mind that the constant exhibitions, durbars and various key events brought together all of these elements quite typically outside their regular context.

As Jens notes, the grain of salt caveat is of course a standard with this in mind, but these sources do present a worthwhile benchmark to look for consistancies with which to establish more defined classifications.

As you note, the size of the grip is often noticeably small for our western hands, a topic often discussed on these pages over the years.
It has often been held that the so called 'Indian ricasso' I mentioned was specifically to allow for the forefinger to extend over the quillon and avoid being cut by the blade near the hilt.
Many disagree, however it is pointed out that tulwar combat seldom had sword to sword contact, parrying was with the dhal (shield).

As for the koftgari decoration, it would be difficult to assess the status or station of one having such quality swords, but broadly they could be seen as courtly weapons as these retinues were considerable throughout so many regions in India.

Hello Jim,

Thank you for taking the time to further elaborate on the Indian ricasso, that is not a theory I am familiar with, but it certainly seems logical, given the hilt construction. Something I need to look into more closely I think.

It is also easy for us western sword collectors (or perhaps it is just me!) to forget the important role that dhal played in combat. As a kukri enthusiast, I must remember this!

I like the association of a courtly weapon, I can see it glinting in the sun at a Durbar in its former glory. Unlike a European court sword of the same period, I would be quite happy to trust my life to this tulwar!

Is there a reading list on the forum where one might learn more about such weapons, including the texts that Jens has mentioned above?

My thanks again Jim,

Kind regards,

Chris

[Jens Nordlunde]

Personally I don't believe in the theory that the forefinger should be curled around the quillon. Had this been the way the sword should hold, there would have been a ring for protection of the finger. It also seems as if Hendley did not think so, as you can see further down. I am sure Hendley would have mentioned it, in his description of the hilt, had it been common use to curl the forefinger around the quillon.

The text below and the picture are from Damascene Work in India by T. Holbein Hendley. Griggs, London, 1892. Plate III.

Left hilt. From Korti in Punjab. 18th to 19th Century.
Hilt made in false damascening. Flower on top of the disc. This ornamentation is very often used in Rajputana.
Hilt: 19.5 cm.
Disc diameter: 6.8 cm.
Width of quillons: 9.4 cm.
Length of langets: 6.8 cm.

Right hilt. Jodhpure. 18th to 19th Century.
Hilt in true damascening. The ornamentation is often used in Rajputana. The shape and flame like mode of finishing the top of the pommel is common in Jodhpor and Marwa, the west Rajput State.
Hilt: 18 cm.
Disc diameter: 7.5 cm.
Width of quillons: 10 cm.
Length of langets:6.4 cm

Additional text to the two hilts. It will be observed that a very good grip can be obtained with this hilt; the great object in Indian swords is to obtain a firm hold, so that the weapon may be used in making the drawing cut which enables the native swordsman to divide an animal into two pieces, or to serve a handkerchief with equal ease. For this reason alone the hilt is always small.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Chris,
Here is a list of books. Some have been reprinted and some not.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...lborough+House

When it comes to the hilt of you tulwar, my warning about the grain of salt is still valid. I had a look ain The Marlborough House by Hendley, which is a catalogue over the things prince Edward got when he visited India in 1876-76.
A lot of weapons are shown and two of them have hilts like yours.
One was given by H.H. The Nizam [of Hyderabad, Deccan], and the other by H.H. The Raja of Mandi.
So far we have three different places, and I am sure I can find more places. There is no doubt that these hilts/swords were in the different armouries at the time, but from where they origin is still an open question.

No 1 is from Case A, and no 149 is from Case G. Sorry for the bad quality.
Years ago I have uploaded all the Cases tot the forum, but I cant find them any more.

[Ian]

Jens,

I adjusted your picture of the two tulwar hilts for its overexposure. I think this one shows the details a little more clearly.

Ian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thanks very much Ian, in the book they ate black, but I know you can make the decoration come out - thanks a lot.
Jens

[mrcjgscott]

Jens,

Many thanks indeed for posting these further images. Those hilts are stunning, truly wonderful quality! I have something to aspire to now!

My further thanks for the list of further reading material, I have one or two, but there are certainly some I need to obtain, especially "The Marlborough House by Hendley"!

I understand your grain of salt warning, and subscribe to it wholeheartedly. I think it is very interesting to read how the design has been used and documented in such a variety of places.

I appreciate you taking the time to assist me in my search for knowledge, hopefully one day I may be able to repay the favour.

Kind regards,

Chris

[Jens Nordlunde]

Chris,
The Marlborough House and The Sandringham books have been reprinted by Ken Trotman and can be found here http://www.kentrotman.com it is no M064.
Good luck

[mrcjgscott]

Many thanks indeed Jens,

Quite the saving compared to the price of an original set! I shall get ordering, I have a feeling they will be very useful indeed.

All the best,

Chris

[sirupate]

Originally Posted by Ian

Jens,

I adjusted your picture of the two tulwar hilts for its overexposure. I think this one shows the details a little more clearly.

Ian.

They are beautiful, so Jens you don't agree with Matt Easton's hypothesis?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Which hypothesis is Matt Easton's hypothesis?

You should see the hilts in the Hendley book, they are close to black, but in a picture program you can make the decoration show.

[sirupate]

Hi Jens, you have done a great job in bringing the colours out.
Matt Easton in the video link I posted (sorry Jens I had presumed you had watched it) believes that the thumb should rest on the ear/langet of the tulwar to help align the edge. But like having the finger curled around the quillion it would leave the finger exposed, as you said in an earlier post about a ring to protect the finger if the quillion was to be used in that way.
All the best Simon

[Jens Nordlunde]

Simon,
Yes I did see Matt's video. When he said the thumb should be along the langet it would not mean much, as it would be on the underside of the sword, and there for better protected. But I dont know if it was so. Besides form that you would still need to place your four other fingers, and that seem to be the problem.

The attached picture is from a 16th century bronze, showing deiety holdidng a sword. I dont think they used these hits then, so it must be a very religious tradition to make the hilts like that.
You see a very narrow grip for the fingers, and the palm of the hand seems to rest on the upright disc.

[Jim McDougall]

Regarding the Matt Easton 'hypothesis'....I watched the very informative video, and Mr. Easton presents a most well reasoned analysis of the techniques used with the tulwar, but I must have missed the 'theory' part.

On the beautiful hilts Jens has shared from Hendley, I am noticing the distinct black background which showcases the gold koftgari, and am wondering if perhaps this style might have had anything to do with the 'shakudo' style of Japan. In the 18th century this fashion was transmitted to European smallswords etc via the East India factories there and in China etc.
It seems I have seen more detailed reference to this style decoration but cannot recall where at the moment. The color plates here are fantastic, especially as they show the key importance of the pommel discs and their inside decoration. Here we see the radiating sunburst, which in varying degree may represent one of the major Rajput clans.
The study of these kinds of symbolism, cosmological as well as floral are significant and intriguing subjects concerning Indian arms.

As Jens has noted, the subject of the 'hooked' finger around the quillon has been debated for a very long time, as also well noted by one of our extremely brilliant former members, B.I. , as I reviewed of one of our discussions on this from 2005.

There have been constant references to the physical size of the Indian individual thus the smaller hands result in the smaller grip size in tulwars hilt. In "By My Sword & Shield" (E. Jaiwent Paul, p.76) the author notes the physical size of Indian people is smaller, but further suggests that the small hilt was to cause a tighter fit for the hand, and that this emphasizes what he terms a sense of 'josh', which apparently loosely translates into a state of aggression, fervor and 'recklessness' in the wielder. Obviously a very subjective and provocative view, but worthy of note in discussion.

Though it is hard to imagine that the hilts of an entire weapon form could be fashioned around such a concept seems far fetched, however the idea of the physical size of the potential users of the sword seems more ascribed to in fact.
In "Swords of the British Army" (Brian Robson, 1975, p.57) in his description of the M1908 cavalry sword, notes , "...a modified version of the 1908 pattern was adopted by the Indian Army in 1918 the blade of which was identical but marked I.P.'08. The hilt generally was much smaller, to match the smaller hand of the Indian trooper".

Returning to the subject of the 'Indian ricasso', the unsharpened section of the blade near the hilt, Philip Rawson (The Indian Sword, 1967) suggests the reason may have been to safeguard the index finger, which ' ...art shows to have sometimes been hooked over the front quillon in India'.
Rawson apparently has this from Mr. B.W. Robinson of the V&A as he has noted in footnotes, however no mention is made of exactly what 'ART' is referred to.
In "Indian Arms and Armour" (G.N.Pant, Lahore, 1980, p.31), the author takes to task many of Rawson's observations and comments, however he seems very much in support of the purpose of the ricasso on Indian blades, and claims that this '..saves the fingers from being cut at the time of wielding", with the impression he is referring to 'accidental' slip of finger(s) over quillon.

I am wondering if the curious reference to 'art' in Mr. Rawson's reference to the finger hooked over the quillon may have been mind of an article by the late Anthony North ("A Late 15th Century Italian Sword", 'The Connoisseur', Dec. 1975, p.239). In his discussion the author notes "..placing the index finger around the base of the blade", a technique shown in Spanish and Italian paintings. His reference was footnoted as from Charles Buttin (1939).
Mr. Rawson was working with the V&A in cataloguing their Indian arms as he wrote his book, and Anthony North was of course with the V&A as well.

Is it possible that the hooked finger 'as seen in art' might have been misconstrued into India from the reference to Spanish and Italian practice?

It is of course noted, and as Jens has pointed out, that in these cases there was indeed a ring guard to protect the finger, thus one of the elements in the developing complex guards on these swords.

While it is well known that colonial activity and trade brought in European weapons, fashion and many other things but though it does not seem that swordsmanship techniques were among them. Still, the styling of arms and of course blades etc. were impacted greatly.

So whether the idea of hooking the forefinger around the quillon might have been from small size of the Indian hand, or if it was perhaps an element of technique taken from European swordsmanship, remains a quandary .

I think here it is important to consider more on the manner in which a tulwar was wielded. As shown in the Easton video, it was a sabre very much intended for the draw cut, thus not held nor used in the manner of European or other sabres. The large pommel disc precluded this type of flexibility.
As such, it was also not intended for sword to sword combat, as the draw cut is a sweeping movement and any sort of parry was for the shield.

The reason for the protective ring on European swords for the extended index finger was of course to guard from cuts resulting in blade to blade contact . The purpose of the finger extension on the European swords if I understand correctly was for better control in certain movements.
It seems I have seen it suggested that such a finger position would also add to control in certain cases with the tulwar, but uncertain if that would pertain to the drawcut.
Whatever the case, as ominous as it seems to have a finger 'outside' the guard, it does not seem that the type combat would expose it to danger.
(I still wouldn't advise it

Nothing conclusive of course, but I wanted to share some of the details of earlier debates and discussions with newer members and readers for them to pursue their own perspectives.

[sirupate]

Thank you for the superb info Jens and Jim.

Jim it may be that Shakudo came via Egypt and Greece and the possible transfer of these alloys to Japan through India and China, from a PDF article online;

Dr. Cóilín Ó*Dubhghaill
Senior Research Fellow, Art and Design Research Centre
Dr. A. H. Jones
Senior Research Fellow, Materials and Engineering Research Institute
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield, UK

It is unclear exactly when the development of the shakudo alloy took place. It seems possible that it was developed in Japan from yamagane, or unrefined copper, which naturally had other impurities such as arsenic and gold, and could be patinated to a dark brown color. Craddock and Giumlia-Mair suggest an alternative origin, describing alloys similar to shakudo in Egypt and Greece dating from the mid-second millennium BC, and the possible transfer of these alloys to Japan through India and China.1 The name shakudo first appeared in Japanese archives in the Nara period (710-784)2 while the oldest existing shakudo piece in Japan, dating from 1164