Tipu Sultan and the Tiger Head Pommel

[olikara]

Hello,

I am new to the forum and this is my first post here. Coming from the Mysore region I have an interest in Tipu Sultan and artefacts associated with him.

My question is regarding Tipu's characteristic Tiger Head sword hilt pommel swords and other 'bubris' marked edged weapons. Did Tipu have exclusive rights to using the tiger head and bubris motifs or did he also grant this privelege to others around him?

We know from contemporary sources that his troops were arrayed in clothes with the bubris marks. Similarly did they carry weapons with the tiger motifs too? And if they did so, where are all these weapons today.

We know again that the British captured tens of thousands of weapons after the fall of Seringapatam, yet we today see very few 'Mysore' pieces attributed to Tipu's period in the market.

Why?

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Olikara,
Welcome to the forum, and thank you for posting on such an interesting topic! There have been a number of discussions concerning the weapons of Tipu over the years.

Tipu Sultan Shah Bahadur, although devoutly Muslim, was deeply influenced by the local Hindu cult of the patron martial goddess Chamundeshwari of Mysore, who rode a tiger. Tipu himself noted, "...it is better to live for a day as a tiger, than to live as a sheep for a lifetime", as he became known as the 'Tiger of Mysore'. He used the tiger motif lavishly on his personal items, and it is known his forces had uniforms with the bubri (tiger) stripes, and though certain weaponry such as cannon etc. often carried some degree of that motif, I do not believe the rank and file would have had such decorated weapons. The personal weapons of Tipu of course were afforded the lavish affectations that carried his personally adopted totem.

There are a number of weapons attributed to Tipu, and these are discussed and illustrated in, "Islamic Arms and Armour of Muslim India", Dr. S. Haider, 1991 ; "Indian Arms and Armour" Dr.G.N.Pant, New Delhi, 1980 and probably one of the most important, "Hindu Arms and Ritual", Dr. Robert Elgood , which offers key insight into the symbolism and tradition in the weapons of India within this sphere. Naturally the importance of regalia and items attributed to Tipu became increasingly popular after the famed battle of his defeat at Seringpatam in 1799, and later in the 19th century spurious weaponry was produced for anxious collectors.

While the tiger striping became a royal insignia for Tipu, it was not likely applied to weaponry associated with the armoury at Mysore. The Maharajah of Mysore was under Tipu's suzerainty and actually maintained control of the armoury there. It seems that weapons from that armoury typically are void of that particular motif, as far as I am aware. Therefore, I do not believe that Tipu's personal motif would have been loosely appointed outside regalia used by his own forces in general, with obviously the most decorative to his court and officers.

After the defeat in 1799, most of the best and historical weapons captured were presented as gifts to leading officers and regents, and carried back to England. Many of the remaining sundry pieces ended up in the Tanjore armoury, which was dispersed in 1878. While there were considerable numbers of representative weapons sold off, much of the weaponry was quite literally rusted scrap if I recall some very discouraging reading from some time ago.

If you will use the search feature here you will find some very interesting discussions concerning weapons from Mysore and of Tipu over a number of years. I think you will find them interesting, and most importantly, if possible, get hold of the Elgood book!!

All very best regards,
Jim

[olikara]

Jim,
Many thanks for the information.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Olikara,

Welcome to the forum. It is an interesting question you bring up, and Jim has, as always, done his homework well.

It is true that the English collected lots of weapons and let them rust, till they could not be used for anything. Other weapons were used in the steel production, and when taking only these two ways of destruction, thousands of swords and daggers were destroyed. The British also destroyed about seventeen thousand of adya katars and other weapons after a riot at Coorg, but these weapons were taken out at sea, and thrown overboard. Although there were many different types of weapons, many thousands were destroyed, so to day, we only have ‘a few’ exambles.

Jens

[olikara]

Friends,
Here are some details of the sword Hilt in my possession. I would welcome any new ideas about it's identification, area of origin, etc. I am not much of a photographer and even lesser of an arms collector, so I request you all to bear with me. Here goes...

The hilt seems to be made of brass and is cast in one piece. As can be seen from the photographs it comprises of a tiger's head pommel and a grip for the hand. The inner side of the grip has ribbed double lines across as can be seen in the photographs.

The tiger's head is incised with the typical Tipu bubris incised all over it which extends down to almost one third of the hand grip. The bubris are S shaped and hollow save for a curving line at the centers. The nose of the tiger is dotted and the forehead has the banana plant like bubris pattern with a straight line and 2 bubris on either side. Towards the neck of the tiger is something like a collar (double lined and ribbed).

One end of the knuckle guard is seen leaving the mouth of the tiger at the pommel and reached down to the quillon. There are no bubris to be found on any part of the knuckle guard or the quillon.

We can see one langet only as the other one seems to be broken from what remains of it. There is no design on the langet as well.

I tried looking all over for any inscription but could find none. There is as you can see no blade and I do not know what came of it or how it came to be broken.

Here are the dimensions:

Overall length (pommel-langet) - 14.5 cm.
Lenghth of grip – 7 cm.

Length of knuckle guard – 10 cm.

Length of langet – 3 cm.

Length from quillon end to knuckle guard end – 11 cm.

I picked this piece from the Mysore region of Karnataka, India.

Awaiting all your feedback.

[Jim McDougall]

This hilt is fascinating as it clearly carries the tiger motif favored by Tipu as his personal totem, however the elements of the form such as the knucklebow, quillons and langet are distinctly of the British M1796 light cavalry sabre. While the British sabres of this pattern were considered one of the first 'regulation' pattern swords for Great Britain, officers were granted a great deal of license in customizing thier own hilts.

During the campaigns in Egypt at the beginning of the Napoleonic period, British officers were profoundly impressed by the warriors known as the Mamluks and thier flamboyant costume and especially the deadly Ottoman hilted sabres. Both they, and the French, adopted the design of these sabres into their own sabres, which eventually became the popular dress sword for officers termed the 'mameluke'. In addition to this, British officers sometimes added certain motif to existing sword hilt styles, creating a manner of hybrid and personalized form which pronounced that officers involvement in key military campaigns. I once owned a British M1803 infantry officers sabre which had the familiar lionhead pommel hilt, but instead of the flowing mane it had added a distinct sphinx headdress, clearly coming from the British campaigns in Egypt. While this practice was not prevalent, it was of course practiced in degree.

It is my opinion that this sabre hilt is one of those examples, probably commissioned by a British officer who saw service in the campaign at Seringpatam in 1799 with the defeat of Tipu Sultan. It seems quite plausible that this hilt was fashioned in the same manner as the M1803 I have described, using as the basis, the new pattern M1796 cavalry sabre.
What is unclear is whether the hilt was produced in India by local outfitters during occupation in years immediately after the famed battle or in England by one of the growing number of weapons contractors outfitting troops.

It is interesting that in India at that time, the British forces were those of the Crown in some degree, but primarily those of the British East India Co. It would seem that if done for an officer of the East India Co. thier device might be found somewhere in the design (while possibly only on the blade, now absent). It is interesting to note that soon after this period, the symbol of the EIC became the rampant lion replacing the quadranted heart with initials.The lionhead pommel did appear on some EIC sabres of this period.

It would be interesting to hear opinions or thoughts on this most interesting hilt. It has been my impression that Tipu would not have used a British hilt design for a sword made in his armouries (he and the British were of course not close, so probably was not of Tipu's reign. While the use of European blades and material was well established with Tipu's father Haider Ali who used German mercenaries, and swords are known carrying European design, this hilt in my opinion is of British form, so would not be from Tipu's armouries.

Thoughts, observations?

All best regards,
Jim

[olikara]

Forgive me for my ignorance.

But, what would have been the purpose of the feature(looks like 2 parallel lines/notches) on the knuckleguard-quillon that I have circled in the photograph attached below?

[kronckew]

i see this on a few similar sabre hilts, noteably the one on this illustration appears to have that feature.


and this one:




just a reasoned guess:

the 90 degree corner there is a weak point & in a casting especially would require a radiused section on the inside as re-enforcement. the decorative lines may be just that, or as this area is also used to attach the sword knots (used as a lanyard to keep you from accidentally dropping your sword while on horseback, which could prove embarrassing in a battle) it could serve as a restraining device to keep the knot in place. many hilts of course have a slot near the pommel for this (like the heavy cav. sabre in the photo).

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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

[ariel]

I do not remember the source (Rawson? Pant?), but it asserted that the Indians valued handles more than blades. A very prosaic explanation of the handle in question is that the blade was damaged beyond repair and discarded. Also (is it my eyesight?) , I cannot see any damage line at the base of the missing langet. Does brass break cleanly? Was the scar polished off?
The presence of a hollow filled with gummy substance is strange to me: the assumption is that that's what held the blade. But Indian cement was black, hard and, when old and damaged, crumbly. The "soft and sticky" stuff cannot be the original cement.

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel,
Interesting note concerning the Indian regard for the hilt above the blade. I would very much like to know the reference for this, but I would imagine it would have to do with the monumental symbolism often imbued in the elements and motif of the hilts.
I would suspect that Pant would have been the source, though I do not have access to the book at present. Rawson's focus was on blade typology, so I rather doubt the implication would have been made by him.

All best regards,
Jim