My first Tulwar [Archive] - Ethnographic Arms & Armour

Jim McDougall

11th September 2007, 06:08 AM

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

Jens Nordlunde

11th September 2007, 05:10 PM

Hi Fernando,

Congratulations with your tulwar. It is a nice one. I doubt very much that the blade is wootz, so I would leave it as it is. It can be, but that is seldom, so if you don’t see any trace of wootz, it is not likely to be wootz. I would be somewhat surprised if the decoration is not on both sides – is it Fernando? I have a feeling, but it is a gut feeling mind you that the tulwar, maybe could be pushed a wee further back. How about mid 1800 to beginning of 1900?

Please let us see some picture with neutral background; the yellow gives too much ‘colour’ to the tulwar.

The size is interesting, as it is fairly small, and many of the hunting tulwars ad the same size of the fighting tulwars – no reason to come closer to a lion or a tiger than you had to, so I don’t think it is a hunting tulwar. Not that it could not have been used for hunting, but I don’t think it was made for this reason. You must remember that when they went to war, they often had two tulwars and three to four daggers in their belt, so maybe one of the tulwars was smaller than the other.

Jens

Battara

11th September 2007, 07:54 PM

Lew

11th September 2007, 07:59 PM

I do see possible pattern welding in the other blade side - without out what doing what Ariel mentioned it would be more difficult to be certain.

Jens - that many weapons? Now I know - Vielen Dank! :)

Battara

I think that what you may be seeing is just some left over oxidation pattern I tried to fix the picture up but did not see anything.

Lew

fernando

11th September 2007, 09:27 PM

Battara

I think that what you may be seeing is just some left over oxidation pattern I tried to fix the picture up but did not see anything.

Lew

Thanks for both your postings Lew, i think you ( and Jim and Jens ) are quite right. I am unexperienced in the area, but looking at this blade steel i don't discern any activity, except for oxidation and or patination. I am posting a bit more enhanced picture, for confirmation.
fernando

fernando

11th September 2007, 10:04 PM

Hi Jim,
Much obliged for your comprehensive input. It will take me some time to absorve it. I hope something further comes up on the decoration subject. Eventually this motiv is only on one side of the blade, the back side is plain.

Hi Jens,
I am glad you find this a nice piece. Here are pictures taken with different light and background. As i said above, the decoration is only on one side of the blade. Does this mean something unusual ?
It is a pitty you find the age of this tulwar as recent as 1850-1900 :shrug: . Jim and Ariel's opinnion was more favourable :D ... i am a fan of antiquity in weapons. But against facts there are no arguments, as we say over here.

Further coments will be more than welcome. One thing i would love to reach a general consensus is whether this is a ceremonial or an action ( infantry )sword

Thanks all again

fernando

katana

11th September 2007, 10:36 PM

Usually, though not always, a blade decorated on one side only.... is usually 'ceremonial'. It is a nice Tulwar, I like it , congrats Fernando :)

I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they :confused:

fernando

11th September 2007, 10:58 PM

Thanks a lot David, for both congrats and info.
I'll bear that in mind.

I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they :confused:

This one is for the experts.

Jim McDougall

12th September 2007, 04:22 AM

You are welcome Fernando, it is an interesting tulwar and it is enjoyable to discuss its possibilities. I am really glad to see Jens come in on this. He's handled more tulwars than anyone I know, so his suggestion of more into the 19th century is probably correct. It is very difficult to really estimate age on these and it is unclear whether slight variations suggest different period or regional preference and I am not aware of the chronological progression of hilt elements. I was not aware that the quillons angled downward suggested an earlier example but it is an interesting concept.

As David has noted, the motif on the face of the blade does seem to suggest a ceremonial or parade weapon. It may have been carried blade upright, face forward with the motif displayed. If this was the case, it would be interesting to know if there was particular symbolism in the motif, what sort of flower would that be?....Jens what do you think?

Best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde

12th September 2007, 04:12 PM

Fernando, don’t be disappointed about my dating. Dating Indian weapons is at the best a vague guess in most cases, and even blades with a date inscribed can’t always be trusted, so Ariel and Jim’s guess may be right due to the decoration and the wear. You don’t see this decoration on a blade often, so a bit of research should give you a good idea of from where in India it comes. It is interesting that the blade is only decorated on one side, but it happens now and again, probably due to cost saving I would think.

Katana, 'heavely engraved' blades can be made of wootz, but this is seldom, besides, 'if' the blade is 'only' engraved on one side due to cost saving, the blade would not be made of wootz, as this would have made the blade more expensive, but there can also have been other reasons for it being decorated on one side.
Jim/Katana, this could be a cermonial tulwar, although I am not convinsed. Tell me another thing, could/would some of the cermonial weapons have been used in war?

katana

12th September 2007, 05:43 PM

Thanks for the info Jens :) ....I am surprised that some wootz blades are 'heavily engraved' for several reasons....the main one being that I would imagine due to wootz's 'granular construction' of harder and softer steels it would make chiseling more difficult and less predictable as the steel's hardness is not 'uniform'.

Hi Jim :) ,
I do agree that the motifs would probably provide a good indication as to whether it's ceremonial. It has occured to me that perhaps the design being 'one sided' is not ceremonial afterall.

In my 'mind's eye' I see the possibillity that a type of 'sword salute' displaying the engraved side could show personal or 'clan' loyalty or have religious, talismatic or cultural meaning , either directed at the enemy or your own fellow warriors/commanders :shrug:

Hi Fernando :) ,
how does the Tulwar 'feel' ....do you think that the balance etc, would make this a good functional sword. Is the blade edged where the decorated part of the blade is ?

Regards David

CourseEight

12th September 2007, 09:02 PM

Hi --

I thought I'd link to a sword on Oriental Arms that is relavent to the "Chiseled Wootz" discussion:

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1926

Not exactly a Tulwar but might be of interest. Of course, plenty not wootz too:

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1331

That's all I've got! Very nice sword, regardless.

--Radleigh

fernando

12th September 2007, 11:20 PM

Hi Jim, thanks for your support.
I was also influenced by Ariel's assessment that the slanted quillons would mean an earlier specimen. I wish he would come back here to tell us more about this.
I understand that basically the decoration on one only side of the blade signifies that such swords are made for parade purposes, but the decoding of this specific motif could drive us to a different explanation, in a way as David sugests.
One thing is certain, in both cases, this one is right handed :)

Hi Jens, i see what you mean.
A decorated sword doesn't necessarily limit its use to ceremonies ... they may as well go into action.
I have already started some research on the decoration, but my resources are very limited and also my knowledge is not backgrounded enough to direct my search in an objective way. Nevertheless i am trying, despite my blindness on the subject.

Hi David, about the "seriousness" of this piece.
It feels well balanced, as far as i can tell when i hold it with my ( only ) left hand ... i don't have the same perception as when i had my dexterous one :shrug:
It has functional characteristics, with a sharp bibevel (?) all along the cutting edge, except for the 5,5 cms.( over 2" ) ricasso.
Its thickness is 5,5 m/m ( 0,21" ) at the forte ... wouldn't pure parade blades be thinner?!
Its total length is 80 cms. ( 31 1/2" ) from the tip to the pommel button ... this to say that the point of balance is found aprox. 51 cms. ( 20" ) away from the tip.
The width being 38 m/m ( 1 1/2" ) at the forte widens 3 m/m at the curved section befores tapering towards the tip.
Its wight is 973 grams ( 2,16 pounds. ), which i would find 'too heavy' for a parade piece?!
Back to its feel and as a curiosity, i am posting pictures handing the sword. As the grip is rather short, i thaught i would hold it with the forefinger in front of the quillon, using the ricasso functionality. To have it pictured by both sides, i had to borrow my wife's right hand. She said she was busy, but i managed to convince her ;) .

Kind regards to all
fernando

Jim McDougall

13th September 2007, 12:56 AM

It is great to have some excellent observations and discussion coming in on this tulwar!
The more I look at this sword the more intriguing it becomes. It is again very difficult to accurately date these tulwars, except often by the patination, as well as the blade itself sometimes as being considered here regarding its potential for combat.
With regard to the chiseled decoration on the obverse of the blade here, I would like to note discussions several years ago concerning the trade blades with chiseled panels of Islamic calligraphy on one side. I believe the Persian lion and cartouche on the other side suggested Assad Adullah. These were widely distributed around first quarter 19th c. and are found on weapons from the shashka to I believe Piso Podang as well as in India on some Mughal tulwars. These Mughal tulwars with these blades may offer a clue.

Since the Rajputs were often Mughal allies in degree, perhaps the impressive chiseled Islamic motif inspired a Rajput interpretation carrying a florally decorated motif more in line with Hindu symbolism. This idea may be of course somewhat effected by the fact that the chiseled hunting scenes on many Indian sword blades was well established. Still it is an idea worth considering since this is clearly not a hunting sword.

It is interesting to note that with Caucasian shashkas and thier mounts, as well on many other weapons, the decoration on the outside is often more intricate and elaborate, while the reverse usually quite simple.

What I meant by the sword being carried blade upright, face forward, is indeed the salutory position. The Rajputs were Kshatria and were profoundly observant of codes of honor and protocol in battle. They were of complex clan lineages, and it would take considerable research to discover particular symbolism that might apply to these clans, however it is known that the three basic lines descend from Hindu gods of sun, moon and fire. We do know that botanical symbolism was often employed in warfare, as described in my previous note concerning "Hindu Arms and Ritual" by Elgood.

Perhaps this may be the tulwar of a proud Rajput warrior of the early 19th c. with decorative motif that he might display in salute to his foe as he entered combat. Of course, the motif may have imbued the blade symbolically with powers associated with the flower depicted, if that can be identified.

Whatever the case, I have to say again, it is really good to see the weapons of India being discussed more, there is so much more research needed!

All best regards,
Jim

katana

13th September 2007, 11:50 AM

Back to its feel and as a curiosity, i am posting pictures handing the sword. As the grip is rather short, i thaught i would hold it with the thumb in front of the quillon, using the ricasso functionality. To have it pictured by both sides, i had to borrow my wife's right hand. She said she was busy, but i managed to convince her ;) .

Kind regards to all
fernando

Hi Fernando,
the size of the hilts is another 'hotly' debated subject ..there are several posts on the Forum.....here is one that I posted...

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2686&highlight=tulwar+disc

Your Tulwar certainly seems 'battle worthy' and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. I suspect that as the blades are 'fixed' with resin, it was easier to 'set' the blade in a way to suit the owner.

Hi CourseEight, thanks for posting the link... it does create more questions.
IMHO I thought most hunting swords were straight bladed...European ones that is. As I thought 'hunting swords' were only used to kill a captured/injured animal quickly, by piercing the spinal cord/heart/main artery. The 'actual' hunting weapons would have been the spear/arrow/firearm or traps were used. Using a curved sword as a hunting sword suggests that a slashing cut was used to despatch the captured animal (beheaded ?)

David

fernando

13th September 2007, 08:09 PM

the size of the hilts is another 'hotly' debated subject ..there are several posts on the Forum.....here is one that I posted...

I am aware of this discussion, as i even posted some humble coments on this thread. Actually i have now brought these handling pictures in order to complement the said frequent discussion. To my poor view there is no doubt that the small Indian hilt subject is a fusion of two distinct phenomena. Among various resources, i remember Rainer Dahenhart's book HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES (page 191):
In the northern Indo-Portuguse territories ( Diu, Damão, Baçaim, Dadra, Nagar-Haveli ) the tulwar was used, but only in the hands of local nobility and auxiliary indigenous forces. The Portuguese weren't using this weapon, firstly because they had more confidence in their own, bu also because the majority of tulwar grips are so small that only few Portuguese hands would fit into them ( pics. 51, 52 and 100 ).
On the other hand, the acceptance of this concept might have been adultered by the introduction of the ricasso, probably brought in by Europeans with their swords. We know that in some cases the ricasso efectiveness was only virtual. In Cingalese kastanes the ricasso is there and was efectively brought by the Portuguese , but the down quillons were so withered that it only served for decoration. This because they never needed this alternative, as they didn't adopt the corresponding fencing techniques. However while i was browsing the Net to look for material on my tulwar, i have read that the majority of tulwar holders in existing pictures, are handling the sword with their forefinger out the hilt and onto the ricasso.
We remember that this system enabled for a much wider angle of sword holding, an advantage that ended up enabling the thrust, which would put the foe without this system in a very weak situation in combat.
Allow me to through some logs onto the fire and post the pages referring to this evolution, within an European perspective,from the same quoted book.

katana

13th September 2007, 08:28 PM

IHowever while i was browsing the Net to look for material on my tulwar, i have read that the majority of tulwar holders in existing pictures, are handling the sword with their forefinger out the hilt and onto the ricasso.
We remember that this system enabled for a much wider angle of sword holding, an advantage that ended up enabling the thrust, which would put the foe without this system in a very weak situation in combat.
.

Hi Fernando,
thanks for posting the drawings :) . I think the majority agree that the forefinger on the ricasso gives greater control of the Tulwar.....but there is no protection for it (the finger)..... which makes no sense :shrug: .

Several of my Tulwars have a slighter larger grip and smaller disc pommels which are much more comfortable and 'easier' to use.

fernando

13th September 2007, 08:32 PM

Your Tulwar certainly seems 'battle worthy' and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. I suspect that as the blades are 'fixed' with resin, it was easier to 'set' the blade in a way to suit the owner.

David
Let me quote again the same book.
The purpose for the tulwar hilts being made in one only piece ( guard, grip and pommel ), an unusual practice in other swords, was to be practical to store them. As in these regions, invasions tumults and popular mutinies were rather frequent, the Sovereigns could store the hilts in one side and the blades in another, so that it needed some time for the swords to be mounted and used. When actual wars were about to come, the Sovereigns would know that with a determined antecipation, and the swords could be mounted in time for battle.
Talking figures, amounts like 100 thousand hilts could be kept in well locked towers, and the equivalent number of blades would be kept with a confortable distance.
For the mounting, hilts were held upsidown and pitch was poured into the hollow grip, the only material that held the blades in position.

fernando

13th September 2007, 08:39 PM

and interesting that your sword is 'handed'...I have several which also feel better in the right hand. David
You mean right handed ? I wasn't clear in my posting. I meant to say that, as the engraving is on the right side of the blade, be it ceremonial or fighter, this tulwar is is right handed in any case :)

katana

13th September 2007, 09:47 PM

You mean right handed ? I wasn't clear in my posting. I meant to say that, as the engraving is on the right side of the blade, be it ceremonial or fighter, this tulwar is is right handed in any case :)

Fernando, sorry I did understand you meant right handed. What I meant by 'handed' is that it is specifically for one side (right) or the other (left) side and is not ambidextrous.(could be used left and right handed)... I hope that makes sense.

Your comments on the storing of blades and hilts separately is interesting....do you know why they were never stored 'complete' ?

spiral

13th September 2007, 10:27 PM

Of course most were stored complete!

Forfinger on ricaso is modern concept to improve balance on poor specimiens of swords or thier currant owners ignorance & interpritation based on never having been in a sword fight..

If your fore finger goes in front of the guard there no point in its existance, one could go Afghan sabre or Shasqua instead., with thier different vertues.

The people who made & used these would have understood that.

Spiral

fernando

13th September 2007, 10:27 PM

Your comments on the storing of blades and hilts separately is interesting....do you know why they were never stored 'complete' ?

Again my funny english didn't make it. The idea was to avoid the sudden reaction of an internal or local rebelion. In those regions these events were taking place every now and then. Sovereigns often dyed of unatural causes, betraied by familiars and local opponents. So in case such people wanted to get hold of the King's own armament to knock him down, they would find it dificult to achieve, as swords would have to be stollen from two different spots and still had to be mounted
Was i clear now, David? :o

spiral

13th September 2007, 10:29 PM

I may be totaly wrong, but I always presume swords decorated on one side were made as wallhangers.

Spiral

fernando

13th September 2007, 10:38 PM

Of course most were stored complete!

Spiral

Hi Spiral
I see you are so certain with your coment.
Maybe the book i have quoted is the wrong source.
Could you quote the book/s you have read stating otherwise?
Thanks
fernando

fernando

13th September 2007, 10:41 PM

I may be totaly wrong, but I always presume swords decorated on one side were made as wallhangers.

Spiral

Maybe, as you say, you are totaly wrong ... so it seems so far, judging by the oppinions already given above and by the specifications of this piece :cool:

spiral

13th September 2007, 10:50 PM

Hi Spiral
I see you are so certain with your coment.
Maybe the book i have quoted is the wrong source.
Could you quote the book/s you have read stating otherwise?
Thanks
fernando

No book Fernando just an IQ over 90 ;)

Spiral

spiral

13th September 2007, 10:56 PM

Maybe, as you say, you are totaly wrong ... so it seems so far, judging by the oppinions already given above and by the specifications of this piece :cool:

I may be wrong, as I said, its just based on what I have seen, have you checked for temper on such one sided pieces? Or looked at the old Bannerman sales catoulouges from the 1920 & 30s? for starters?

Spiral

fernando

13th September 2007, 10:59 PM

Forfinger on ricaso is modern concept to improve balance on poor specimiens of swords or thier currant owners ignorance & interpritation based on never having been in a sword fight..

If your fore finger goes in front of the guard there no point in its existance, one could go Afghan sabre or Shasqua instead., with thier different vertues.

The people who made & used these would have understood that.

Spiral

Right. Then what is the reason for the existance of a ricasso in tulwars ? Only for fantasy, like in Cingalese kastanes and other ?
Aren't knuckle guards in tulwars also of European influence ?

fernando

spiral

13th September 2007, 11:14 PM

I see you have never ground a blade & fitted it to a handle or sharpend a full length blade into a handle that has languets the Fernando.

It is easier faster neater workmanship ;)

A finger in front of the guard negates any point in having a guard, its that simple. ;)

the people who made them & the warriors who used these would understand that.

Its quite simple realy. ;)

Spiral

Andrew

14th September 2007, 12:49 AM

Keep it civil, please. This isn't your local.

katana

14th September 2007, 01:34 AM

Was i clear now, David? :o

Yes Fernando, now it makes sense ;) :) ......I also know that if I had to post in Portugese .....I would never make any sense :D My Portugese is very....very bad :o

Jim McDougall

14th September 2007, 05:09 AM

The extended forefinger over the guard, and the 'Indian ricasso'. This is a very old debate that seems to come up every so often over the years!
As always these 'debates' often bring out the darker side of some people, but it would be interesting if we could really examine the topic and leave the personalities out.

I think Fernando's posting of the Dahenhart book brings up some pertinant perspective. It seems that the practice of wrapping the forefinger around the guard for more control was well established with rapiers, and the developed quillons of the guard were indeed for protection of the hand and the finger.
The Portuguese were well established colonially in India. Many early weapons of India seem to have borne the influence of European weapons including two handed swords, the basket hilt, broadsword military blades, trade sabre blades among others.

The purpose of the ricasso on Indian sabre blades is of course the center of this controversial topic. Some questions that should be considered:

On many forms of tulwar, there is the knuckleguard which is suggested to have derived from European sabres. This hilt feature suggests protection for the hand in sword to sword combat. It would seem that an extended finger outside the guard in this case would invite disaster.

On the other hand, much of the Indian use of the tulwar involved slashing cuts with the only parrying received by the shield. If this was the case, the finger would not require protection, and the cut might be better controlled by the tightly held wrapped forefinger.

It has been shown in previous discussions that the typical size of the Indian hand was indeed typically smaller and the hilts were often fashioned accordingly. In some cases this was taken to presume that certain hilts were not meant to receive the entire finger group, the forefinger would be outside the guard. This was disproven in my opinion by similar size hilts on swords with basket hilts that could not allow such finger extension.

Did all Indian blades actually have ricassos? Could these have been taken from trade European sabre blades in form? Was the purpose of the ricasso, being the blank unsharpened spot at the root of the blade, simply a choil to act as a terminus for sharpening the blade?

It may well be that the extended forefinger was simply a practice subject to individual preference. Possibly the manner early Portuguese swordsmen held thier rapiers may have influenced some Indian swordsmen, bit it does not seem likely that the tulwars were fashioned specifically to afford that option. Also the rapier was of course a thrusting weapon, the tulwar clearly was not.

It would seem that a defined conclusion to this controversial topic will likely remain at an impasse, and individuals will retain thier opinions pending more compelling evidence. I always have the utmost regard for those who maintain their opinions without trying to belittle others, and look forward to more observations and especially supporting material.

All best regards,
Jim

spiral

14th September 2007, 11:29 AM

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.

Spiral

katana

14th September 2007, 11:31 AM

What amazes me .....is that Indian history is fairly well documented...the Tulwar was in use until late 19th C / early 20th C yet we can find no conclusive evidence of how the Tulwar was held or its technique of use. No definitive evidence about the average hand size....just some small references from various sources. One of which I found that stated a consignment of British military swords made with smaller hilts for the Indian conscripts. But, it is not stated whether they ACTUALLY measured the average hand or that they made an assumption and took the measurements from 'local' swords (Tulwars).

The other point of interest is the diversity of blade forms, some slightly curved to the Shamshir 'curve', some with a sharpened back edge, some with widened tips...all with differing weights...points of balance etc. Some of the sword 'strokes', for instance, used with a sword that has a sharpened back edge would not be available to those without.

So why are the hilts so similar in shape (other than the addition of a guard) ? From a practical point of view this seems 'unusual'.

Emanuel

14th September 2007, 05:10 PM

Hi David,

I don't think that the variation is all that surprising. European swords had just as much diversity in terms of shapes, sizes, and weights. Look at the Oakshott typology, I'm actually surprised there isn't an equivalent one for Indian swords. I think the standard Indian hilt is so standard simply because it was very effective. There are other hilts without the disk pommel and quillons, but they seem to be rareer. Perhaps they tried different grips and found the standard one to be most advantageous.

Hi Jim,
I have two tulwars and neither has a ricasso. I have no reason to suspect the blades were cut down in any way so I think there must be plenty of swords without the ricasso.

About the finger over the guard grip, I think that the disk pommel gets in the way of holding the tulwar in a rapier hold. Holding either of mine, I don't see any particular difference or advantage in wielding by positioning the fore-finger over the guard.

I think that Indians were sufficiently comfortable with a slashing fighting style not to modify the tulwar too much. They had plenty of other sword forms to use when thrusts were needed. Jens mentioned that warriors equipped themselves with four weapons, perhaps one sword was a slasher and the other better suited for a thrust. The kattars would fulfill that need though, wouldn't they?

Regards,
Emanuel

Rick

14th September 2007, 06:01 PM

I had always thought that the tulwar blades w/out ricasso were Persian made. :confused:

(opinion)
One of the Indian swords not made for slashing, but for thrusting is the kirach .
(ducks) :D

ariel

14th September 2007, 08:01 PM

kai

14th September 2007, 08:16 PM

As a sidenote: IMHO the round engraving near the base of the blade seems to be a lotus seedpot (Nelumbo nucifera).

Regards,
Kai

fernando

14th September 2007, 08:41 PM

Yes indeed , appologies for my unprovoked & ignorant outburst.

Spiral
Hi Spiral
I fail to discern within the might of your inteligence quoficient a consistent reason to deny my quotation of a book of historical events written by an internationaly credited guy, without something solid to counter propose.
I wonder who you were trying to belittle, the book author or myself.
If it was the writer, he will probably not hear about your so called outburst, nor will i tell him when i see him. If it was my humble person, those were bullets that skipped over the cuirasse of my indiference ... sorry for the ready made phrase.
So you needn't apologise in either case, unless you are adressing the Forum members or and moderators, as probably that was your intention after all.
I try and keep in mind Egberto Gismonti's statement that the quality of the answer resides in the time of sedimentation of the question, but i fail to do that, as i don't have such wisdom profile.
I will nevertheless refrain from answering to your other insinuations. I do not have your assumed intelectual obligations, but will obey to the moderators message to "keep it civil".
I am sorry for anything said above that you or the other Forumites may dislike.
fernando

Jim McDougall

14th September 2007, 11:10 PM

Thanks so much guys for the added input which include some outstanding observations!
Emanuel I appreciate your notes on the tulwars you have and agree that the Indians did not need to modify the tulwar to adjust to certain preferences in using it, and that there were probably considerable numbers without the ricasso. As rick has noted, the Persian shamshir blades were without ricasso, and obviously with Mughal courts highly influenced by Persia, of course these blades would have been mounted in tulwars.

Kai, thank you for the observation on the flower on the blade being quite possibly a lotus seedpot, and for including the botanical reference. The lotus would of course be very logical in representation here. I had thought there were too many petals for a lotus, and your observation would resolve that.

Ariel, you have added an extremely valid purpose for the ricasso that I had honestly not thought of, adding strength to the root of the blade. Your comment on the purpose of the guard to separate the hand from the blade is of course clear and well established as several others have noted. This is one of the reasons that make the extended and wrapped forefinger so questionable, but all possibilities must be considered.

It does seem that it was commonly accepted that the hands of Indian warriors were indeed smaller and that the hilts were made to more firmly accommodate them, as evidenced by the size of hilts of other Indian sword forms as well. As Katana has very well pointed out, and I believe the reference he cites is from Robson ("British Military Swords") where it is noted that swords made for Indian troopers were made with smaller hilts. It is important to note as Katana has, that there is no evidence of that particular action being based on any actual study, but probably a simple assumption.

The reference that Fernando included suggesting that weapons in armouries were often kept disassembled is most interesting, and I am glad that he noted the source as Mr. Daehnhardt's book. The author is indeed a highly respected authority on arms and armour and I would consider references found in his work quite valid. Just as most references however,it must be remembered that often new evidence is presented that could requalify material in most any resource.

Thanks for patching up the slight derailment there guys! :)

All very best regards,
Jim

fernando

14th September 2007, 11:43 PM

Well, the "finger-over-quillon" idea always struck me as strange: blades slide down toward the guard and, when they meet a finger, the blade always wins. The entire idea of the guard is to separate the incoming blade from the hand.
The obvious reason for a ricasso is to strenghten the blade: the more massive it is at the base, the better. Actually, slashing swords require only the distant third of the sharpened blade or thereabouts to be fully functional. The rest is for the show.
Thank you Ariel,
At a final stage, it is undeniable that the finger over the quillon in tulwars can only reach disaster, rather than comon sense. The point i have initialy raised was more like a trip wondering to what extent exterior influences and mutations can be seen in weapons, as in other things, that are just remnants of what didn't meet actual funcionality, but nevertheless prevail on the object, raising either all kinds of speculations or the nostalgy of a well identified but unnefective device.
I quote again the kastane, the nimcha and probably many others.
As i said when i posted the pictures, the hilt was too small for both mine and my wife's hands and curiously the quillon reentrance and the ricasso existance were just an invitation to extend the forefinger over and through it.
As for the ricasso being uniquely for reinforcing the blade base, the so called forte, i thaught a certain double atribution would take place here, like the egg and the hen. My question is that if ricassos were only for strenghtening the blades, they didn't necessarily have to be enbeveled or at least unedged. Whereas if the blade base is for wraping the finger, it doesn't have to be thicker but surely has to be blunt.
I have read that the ricasso functional idea seems to be very old. In the British Museum there is a Sassanid silver cup of the VI century, depicting a warrior holding a sword with his finger in front of the guard. It would be nice to check in detail, if possible, the whole atitude.

BTW Ariel, i still hope you can tell us more about the slanted quillons being relative to age, in tulwars.

Thanks again

fernando

fernando

14th September 2007, 11:46 PM

As a sidenote: IMHO the round engraving near the base of the blade seems to be a lotus seedpot (Nelumbo nucifera).

Regards,
Kai
Thank you for the hint Kai,
I must say i have rushed browsing the net for lotus seed pictures but, to my modest eyes, i fail to see such resemblance.
Maybe other member will confirm this.
Kind regards
fernando

kai

15th September 2007, 12:08 AM

Hello Fernando,

I'm assuming it to be a stylized representation: The seedpods are variable and change quite a bit throughout the ripening process; they are pretty graphic though and lend themselves to abstraction IMHO.

Regards,
Kai

http://cccmkc.edu.hk/~kei-kph/Lotus/Lotus_image/Lotus%20fruit_mature%20and%20ripe%20with%20full%20 grown%20seeds_cropped_250.jpg

http://www.aquatechnobel.be/plantes/Lotus/lotus_fruits_small.jpg

http://cccmkc.edu.hk/~kei-kph/Lotus/Lotus_image/lotus%20seeds%20mature_800.jpg

spiral

15th September 2007, 12:27 AM

My apology was to you Fernado & to other foromites & the moderaters as well.

My rude comment about IQ was particularily aimed at the finger on the ricaso concept, from whoever it came from. You or the auther or anyone else. After all it realy does negate any point in having a guard. It is a shame i put my point over so badley though. me bad. :o I am just incredulus when people say it.

That rather shows my then state of bieng as your comment was more related to the storeing handles & blades in different places. :shrug:

RE.

For the mounting, hilts were held upsidown and pitch was poured into the hollow grip, the only material that held the blades in position.

Examination of tulwar hilts quite often shows methods other than copius amouts of pitch & sap derivied resins I think?

Katana, India is {& was.} made up with many races & peoples in some areas like Coorg People most people are very small, While some of the Punjabi & Rajastan people are rather on the large size, I dont think one handle size would do for evryone.

Spiral

fernando

15th September 2007, 01:01 AM

Hi Spiral,

Let's skip over that and go back to business

Examination of tulwar hilts quite often shows methods other than copius amouts of pitch & sap derivied resins I think?

Spiral

When i said the only material that fixed the blade i meant to say that there were no rivets or screws or the like, just the liquid material. The book actually mentions pitch, but i am ready to accept the idea of other solutions being used. This is my first tulwar after all, and i only have a couple books on the subject, whereas you have a larger experience. Pitch was o.k. for me, as i had already read it was also used to fix jambiyas. Besides, it is a very old stuff. Maybe other solutions took place in later times ? :shrug:
As for the tulwar ricasso and the forefinger, it wasn't in the book, but my whilling to speculate a bit in the subject of European influences on Oriental weaponry, as i tryed to explain in my reply to the last Ariel's posting.
All the best
fernando

Andrew

15th September 2007, 02:13 AM

My apology was to you Fernado & to other foromites & the moderaters as well.

Cheers, Spiral. :cool:

ariel

15th September 2007, 03:27 AM

spiral

15th September 2007, 12:27 PM

Jens Nordlunde

15th September 2007, 01:17 PM

This post can also be read on My Pata.

Damascene Work in India, 1892, by T. H. Hendley.

Page 10. The fist fills the grip of the Indian sword, and a large pommel confines the hand. Burton points out that this was the case long ago, as Arjuna is so represented grasping his weapon in the Caves of Elephanta. As the Indian does not fence, he does not require a straight pointed weapon. The Indian hilt is small and has no knuckle-guard. The heavier swords have knuckle-guards, and even basket hilts. The huge gauntlet swords – Patta – used by the Nagas or military monks of Jeypore, and by Mahrattas, have large steel gauntlets.
Comments to page 10. I find the description of how the hilts were held were good, and feel sure that he would have mentioned it, had the Indians held it otherwise.

Page 11. [about the katar] It is mentioned by Ibn Batuka, who lived in the days of Mohamed Toghluk, that is, about AD 1332.
Comments to page 11. A travel companion of Betuta’s was killed at the coast of west India, with a weapon described as being a katar. As the katar described, hardly is the first one ‘invented’, it is likely that the katar, as a weapon, is far older.

fernando

15th September 2007, 05:02 PM

Sorry, this was a double up

fernando

15th September 2007, 05:10 PM

Fernando,
Re: slanted quillons.
For the life of me, I cannot remember where I got this info from originally. I've heard it mentioned casually so many times that I assumed it was just a well known and trivial piece of info.
If I am wrong, than I also apologize. :o
Hi Ariel,
I am feeling sort of uncomfortable with so many apologies :o
The fact that i am contemplated with postings from a God's lion :cool: in my threads is quite a prize for me. I am no academic. I will consider your assumption on this subject good enough for me, until something otherwise proves the contrary.

fernando

fernando

15th September 2007, 06:27 PM

Thankyou....

Fernando, For me sap & pitch are all very similar, although some are also fitted with a chalky rock type substance, possibly borax? some tulwar do have a rivet in them as well, & on some otheres the finial is pinched or some such tight fitting onto the tang as a permenant fixing & indeed I have had one piece where the final was actuly part of the tang, it was only because of damage that this was visible.

I dont know how common such fixings were as generaly the second two varietys are only visble if the handle is damaged or removed in some way.

I expect others here have seen many more dismantled tulwar than I.

Spiral

Very interesting and oportune, Spiral

I will start be re-interpretering what i have read. Tulwar hilts are built to one piece, not meaning they are cast in one piece. So the assumed difference between them and other sword hilts is that they are kept assembled in one piece, whereas the other diverse hilts remain available with their components separate. I hope this is not nonsense.
As for the fixing to the blade, i look at the several examples in Tirri's book, and they all seem not to have rivets. Could this mean could mean the majority of these pieces are fixed only by "glueing" the tang into the grips?
On the hand i must say that i am just arriving from my visit back to the guy who sold me the tulwar, as i knew he had two more of these pieces, which i haven't found so appealing. Efectively one of them had its tang also fixed by a rivet. The other one must have had a hilt "pommel" accident, and the disk and finial were refixed by openning a vent on the grip top and insert the finial "flat vertical plate" into it, and fix it with two rivets ... aparently a period repair. However i saw no signs of this disc/finial set being fixed/riveted to the tang, before or after the damage.

Now i have some important questions and i need some help here

I have noticed that these two tulwars, without knuckle guards, had grooves and also a false edge in the one third blade near the tip, as for thrusting. One of them even has a little hump where the bevel starts. Looking to Tirry's book, i would say these would be gaddaras, a sort of tulwar with a kilig blade. Is this potentially correct?
They both have short blades, some 28" in straight line.Their disks are very plain, as all the rest.
The one with the humped false edge had one langet repair. Looks like a new langet was welded with brass or bronze soldering. I wonder if "golden" look soldering is old enough for this to be a period repair. I can only think of contemporaneous oxiacetylene brass or bronze soldering.
I am tempted to buy this piece, the price is around $ 280 (the one i have now cost me $ 350).
I now i am a sucker.
Should i buy this humped false edge gaddara looking tulwar ?
Remember this is a small country and there are'nt many old weapons around.
BTW i am not an eBay or any kind of web auction user
Thanks a lot in advance for some helping response.
fernando

spiral

16th September 2007, 12:29 AM

.
As for the fixing to the blade, i look at the several examples in Tirri's book, and they all seem not to have rivets.

Hi Fernando, can I suggest you look again at Tirris book, in. fig. 249 one is riveted twice, {Ive never seen double rivets on tulwar before.} & in fig 249c 3 have the single rivet fixing. So that 4 out of 12 tulwar showing rivets, { fig 249b they have none.} But realy unless you try to dissasemble the grip you can find what other hidden fixing there may be.

If any tulwar were kept dissasembled, {something I personaly find hard to belive, but cannot disprove. dispite the fact it would logisticaly be a nightmare.}} they would only be the very lowest quality pieces for volonteers & conscripted peasents, as after all all the Marajahs, kings & major landowners whatever, had there own proffesional standing full time army & troops.

Brass Brazing has been around for centurys in India.

For $280 I would want a very nice tulwar, but they are commen in England.

Spiral

Emanuel

16th September 2007, 01:31 AM

Hello,

Perhaps a way to resolve the matter of whether or not tulwars were stored disassembled would be to look at the old catalogues when Indian armouries sold their stock to western auction houses and collectors. Were the countless tulwars sold assembled or disassembled? If assembled, would the armouries or the buyers go through all the trouble of re-hilting the thousands of tulwars that were bought?

Fernando, I recommend you start using eBay, there are loads of tulwars at cheap prices, as well as scores of other goodies. Here in Canada I think our situation is reversed from yours: our antique shops are empty and we have no junk shops. People here have little to no real interest in pre-WWI stuff. At military shows the cheap ethno tourist trinkets are priced off the scale, so ebay is the best alternative.

Regards,
Emanuel

ariel

16th September 2007, 04:58 AM

fernando

16th September 2007, 02:04 PM

Hi Fernando, can I suggest you look again at Tirris book, in. fig. 249 one is riveted twice, {Ive never seen double rivets on tulwar before.} & in fig 249c 3 have the single rivet fixing. So that 4 out of 12 tulwar showing rivets, { fig 249b they have none.} But realy unless you try to dissasemble the grip you can find what other hidden fixing there may be.
Spiral

Hi Spiral,

I confess my eyes were not correctly focused.
I wouldn't know that rivets were "disguised" by decoration. I was infuenced by the tulwar i saw at the seller i visited, that has no ( more ) decoration and the rivet is clearly seen , with no surrounding efects. I now can see them easy at Tirris book. Not wanting to argue for the sake of resisting to this fact, could it be that the ancient tulwars ( before XVI-XVII century ) were mostly unriveted ?

fernando

fernando

16th September 2007, 02:08 PM

If any tulwar were kept dissasembled, {something I personaly find hard to belive, but cannot disprove. dispite the fact it would logisticaly be a nightmare.}} they would only be the very lowest quality pieces for volonteers & conscripted peasents, as after all all the Marajahs, kings & major landowners whatever, had there own proffesional standing full time army & troops.
Spiral

Hi Spiral

This is contingent, as can be relative to the period at question.I will better revert with a strict and exaustive translation of page 189, that refers:

''' The main charateristic of this arm is little known, but rather interesting. Apart from individual arms that were manufactured for high rank personalities, more simple tulwars were also produced, in large quantities, for the Sovereigns arsenals. Invasions, popular insubordinations and palatial revolutions were very frequent. Few were the Sovereigns that dyed of natural causes. The state of war between ones and others was a frequente situation. In this atmosphere it became obvious that the possession and access to the arsenals were a preocupation of the greatest priority. A system was invented that impeached the possibility of using an Indian arsenal from one moment to the other. The handles of tulwars were built in metal ( usually iron ), joining guard, grip and pommel in one only piece, which doesn't happen in the majority of white weapons of other origins, where all these components were separated one from eachother. As tulwars handles were one only part, it became easy to join all these in one arsenal ( we are talking, in round numbers, in the order of the one hundred thousand handles ), and build a tower where these could be well kept with "seven keys" ( my commas , for a Portuguese figure of speech ). In another tower, distant from the first one, the respective blades were kept. When a sovereign decided to invade a neighbour country or prepare himself to defend his own, such event would be known within months of antecipation, which allowed for the mounting of the blades in their handles. Such blades had a short tang, which was neither peened, screwed, or stuck by a pin. To couple the blade with the grip, the late was turned upsidown, pouring in into his hollow part heated pitch, therefore liquid, as the blade was inserted. Once the pith cooled down, the blade would be fixed enough for battle, during years. In case it started to oscilate, the fixing system could allways be repeated. A strategic Sovereign would know how much time he needed to mount his army weapons and, taking precaution, had his arsenals ready in due time for the distribution of tulwars. In case of a mutiny or a palatial revolution, there was no time to mount the tulwars, in a manner that the arsenals were relatively protected from improper utilization.'''

As a curiosity, i have read in pages 244/255 of the same book that, between the XI and XVIII centuries, only twenty six out of the sixty four Industani Sovereigns left the throne due to natural death. As for the other twenty eight:
13 were killed (Gheias-oo-dee by his son and Seyed Mobarik at the mosque ).
8 were deposed/killed.
2 were deposed and blinded.
5 were deposed.
2 were deposed and expelled.
2 dyed in battle ( Ibraim Lodi in Paniput ).
1 was poisoned.
1 was emprisoned and killed.
1 dyed by accident.
1 fled after military defeat.
1 abdicated.
... Did i fail anyone ?

fernando

fernando

16th September 2007, 02:51 PM

Brass Brazing has been around for centurys in India.

For $280 I would want a very nice tulwar, but they are commen in England.

Spiral

Brass brazing, that's the term.
Thanks a lot for the info. I thaught well that the langet repair was a period one.
But maybe after all i don't buy the piece or, if i ever do, will counter offer a lower price, like 100 pounds.
Here between us two, i thaught you were posting from the the States.
Sorry for the mistake :o

fernando

fernando

16th September 2007, 03:30 PM

Hi Emanuel,

Hello,

Perhaps a way to resolve the matter of whether or not tulwars were stored disassembled would be to look at the old catalogues when Indian armouries sold their stock to western auction houses and collectors. Were the countless tulwars sold assembled or disassembled? If assembled, would the armouries or the buyers go through all the trouble of re-hilting the thousands of tulwars that were bought?

Flavio, I recommend you start using eBay, there are loads of tulwars at cheap prices, as well as scores of other goodies. Here in Canada I think our situation is reversed from yours: our antique shops are empty and we have no junk shops. People here have little to no real interest in pre-WWI stuff. At military shows the cheap ethno tourist trinkets are priced off the scale, so ebay is the best alternative.

Regards,
Emanuel

Between the historical time reflected in the book (relative to the Discoveries period, XVI-XVII century), and the stock sell out of the Indian Armouries, a good couple centuries were past. Probably some techniques and tatics were vanished by then, tulwars were not the massive vital weapon any more, thus not being the fulcrum of stategies.
The same thing could happen with their blade fixing system, rivets or no rivets ... what do i know?
I am not sayingt that the book author is not wrong or talking nonsense, but maybe some points should be considered, to give it the benefit of doubt.

I notice that you call me Flavio. I hope he doesn't mind you calling me his name ... i don't :D
I don't use eBay by option, based on various reasons ... some of them subjective: I hate to wait long for things to arrive, i hate that they are submited to customs with whatever unexpected results, i hate to find out that the thing i ordered is not what i expected ( i am already sucker enough without that ), i hate to bid and loose, and i hate the idea to find one more way to spend money. Even sticking only to what i find in shops and junk fairs around here, is more than enough for me to expand my consumism vice.
BTW, pre WW1 stuff is still to modern for my taste. I also neither fancy reproductions nor still active pieces. I like real antique things, XIX century or prior, as if i were a tycoon :shrug:
When i feel that my pockets are full, i travel to Lisbon to visit my daughter ( some 220 miles ), and go to a couple specialized shops there, where one can find tones of good old and serious ( expensive ) stuff.
All the best
fernando

Emanuel

16th September 2007, 03:48 PM

Hi Fernando, I apologize for the mistake. I had one of Flavio's threads open at the same time, I was tired and both of you start with F :o :D

What you say about the storing of swords in the time of Discovery could be valid. I wonder, are there no texts or treatises by Indian generals/strategists/etc ? There must be some sort of documentation left over from those times.

I always envy you folks on the home continent. Go in any shop and you're bound to find some treasure. Canadians generally go for the Wars memorabilia, understandably but saddly for me :shrug: .

Best regards,
Emanuel

spiral

16th September 2007, 04:09 PM

No worrys Fernando, I would say yes I am an English gentleman but you already know that isnt true.... :)

Thankyou for the excert of Rainer Daehnhardt`s. I must admit I havent read any o the 60 plus military history books hes written so far . He certanly turns them out fast!

Interesting that he has reputedly collection of more than 500.000 swords, guns, canons, pommels, maps and manuscripts related to the Portuguese Discoveries & the people they met. {great euphimism!} If he looked at each piece for five minutes, non stop for 10 hours a day evry day it would take him 15years! that combined with having written over 60 books actualy makes me wonder somewhat about his material. But I guess I am a skeptic.
:shrug:

500,000 pieces, that would arm several of the great old Indian armys in thier intirity! So realy he should be a great resource of hands on expierience, but I do wonder....

It seems he has a shop as well, perhaps you know it?

Avenida Engenheiro Duarte Pacheco, Amoreiras Shopping, loja 1031, Campolide, 1070-100 Lisbon.

Tel: 213 833 249

It might be woth visiting?

He might even have a few tens of thousands of old kukris to get rid off if I am lucky! :D

But seriosly, does he state any source of his statemets about the separate storage of handels & blades?

I see one of his books it titled "Men, Weapons & Balls" & I rather fear that title may be rather accurate collouquly speaking.

But perhaps I am wrong & I certanly cant proove he is. ;)

I would like to see some of his other works I think...

Spiral

fernando

16th September 2007, 04:30 PM

Hi Fernando, I apologize for the mistake. I had one of Flavio's threads open at the same time, I was tired and both of you start with F :o :D

No problem ... even usefull for discussions becoming less intense :cool:

What you say about the storing of swords in the time of Discovery could be valid. I wonder, are there no texts or treatises by Indian generals/strategists/etc ? There must be some sort of documentation left over from those times.

If there is somebody that could hold historical material of such level, the author of this ( and many ) books is potentially one or actualy the best of them. I can't put my hands ( hand :D ) on fire if he is developing some fantasy on the tulwar subject, but he holds the most precious specimens of weaponry, cannonery, armoury, documentations, cargo inventories, maps and portolanos , you name whatelse, of the discoveries period ... and not only. He is the owner of some items collections, like sword pommels and other, to the gauge of largest in the world. He was visited by the British Museum to inventory and photograph some of his collections ( was it the pommels or the gun locks ? ). He has plenty ranks and credentials both in Portugal and Europe. One of the persons that managed to visit his mannor house was Antonio Cejunior, a member of this Forum.
http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/RDCollection.htm
Only he is not an web guy ... otherwise i would advice you ( or anyone else ) to check with him about the tulwar subject. The shops i mentioned in Lisbon are actually his own. This way he can sell his excedents and specially buy more and more stuff for his collection. Everytimes i go there and have a chance, i ask him to "lecture" me about a determined specimen. He "connects the turbos" and keeps disserting on the subject for hours, untill the next client or fellow collector or friend arrives.

I always envy you folks on the home continent. Go in any shop and you're bound to find some treasure. Canadians generally go for the Wars memorabilia, understandably but saddly for me :shrug: .
Best regards,
Emanuel

Not so simple as claping hands ... but if one has the money, curious things show up, every now and then.

Lots of health for you
fernando

spiral

16th September 2007, 05:07 PM

Remember this is a small country and there are'nt many old weapons around.

I think Mr. Rhienheardt can explain why that is! :D

Well if he has got that many pieces thats incredible, he could build the most arms impresive museam in the world!

But its still true that If he looked at each piece for five minutes, non stop for 10 hours a day evry day it would take him 15years!

Its a pity there arnt more photos of his collection online.

Spiral

fernando

16th September 2007, 05:56 PM

Hi Spiral
Part of the answer is in the answer i just posted to Manolo.
I wouldn't know if the count is 500 000 items, but you must consider not only basic weaponry specimens but also periphericals, amunitions, accessories, documents and all sorts of devices. He lends and donates specimens to Museums and keeps permanent exhibitions in various places.
The book you mention is in its fourth edition and is actually called in Portuguese "Homens Espadas e Tomates" = "Men Swords and Tomatoes" which comes to the same. It's in fact the book i quoted on the tulwar theme and, that i know, Jim McDougall, Philip Tom and Marc Gener have a copy. I have three other of his works. Some are bilingual. I take it that the others are more on the historical side and don't discuss or depict weapons themselves, which is not my interest. I also ignore if the books he wrote are such sixty, or if some of them are just thematic articles, but i know that he writes introductions and makes evaluations for fine weapons auctions catalogues, from wich i have one or two. He is also the guy selected by the Courts when it comes the need for antique weapons expertize. Among various ranks, he is the President of the Portuguese Academy of Antique Arms, from which i have a couple bilingual bulletins. In other words, exorbitating or not, i bet he feels well above those that may pretend to question his deeds ;) . You know, when a guy is good and famous at something, he has more perrogatives to enhance his knowledge or even "invent" variations, than greyish folks. Speaking about his balls accuracy, i heard that he goes on his third wife :cool: .
Yes, as i told Emanuel, i know the shop you mention and another one in Cascais. I also know that he once opened another one in London, in front of Harrods, to buy stuff from Portuguese Aristocracy that fled from Portugal during the last revolution in 1974. As an example, he has bought from an unamed Marquis lots of precious documentation from the XVI and XVII century.
About you having not read any of his works, you know the British phlegm ... Portuguese ? Discoveries? what in heck is that ? :cool:
Exceptionaly one of the best or even unique Portuguese works from the XVIII century, ESPINGARDA PERFEITA = THE PERFECT GUN, was translated by him and a British called W. Keith Neal, and was selling for 10 pounds by Sotheby Parke Bernet, in 1974. Maybe you didn't exist at the time or were not old enough to buy books?! :D At leasdt i didn't see you around when i stayed in Britain for a couple months back in 1967 :)
As for his other works i have or know, i can apoint them to you or even scan some of the pages, depending on your area of interest ... no big deal. Even if they are poor stuff, one allways gets to now more than before he reads them.
Sincerly
fernando

Jim McDougall

16th September 2007, 07:22 PM

Hi Fernando,
Thank you for adding the excerpt from the Daehnhardt reference, it really has a lot of fascinating detail (its great to have the translated material since the text is in Portuguese and Ive always been resigned to admiring the illustrations:). The discussion on whether the swords were stored intact or disassembled is truly an interesting aside here, and it is a topic I have really never been aware of nor considered.
It is an interesting idea that you have added some support for by showing the chronic unrest experienced in these kingdoms! It is interesting that the sword that Ariel has so kindly posted here is termed 'gaddara', a term that refers to riot or mutiny, suggesting that these events occurred enough that a sword type might be colloquially referred to by the term.

It seems to me that there are so many terms, concepts, misperceptions etc. in the study of arms and armour and history, and these have often led to myths, legends and folklore perpetuated by romanticizing and interpretation by later writers. Often these 'chestnuts' ( an English figure of speech :) are interjected into books, articles and narratives, and in these are seldom, if ever, referenced.
With this being the case, it is quite easy to imagine someone as immersed in a literal sea of antiquities and historica as Mr. Daehnhardt, adding such detail in writing without reference.
How lucky you are to have such a figure nearby Fernando! It would be so incredibly amazing for the opportunity to visit him and his collections!

It would seem that the fabricating of tulwar hilts, or others such as katars, in a single piece would be ease of manufacture. The well established use of trade blades, and probable existance of voluminous stores of these components in arsenals having been received from incoming vendors or traders, might have been in varying stages of assembly. Possibly the rulers saw no urgent need to employ furbishers in such assemblies until threat was perceived (sounds like pretty regularly though!).

While it is not noted by those who witnessed the removal of the arsenal materials, whether the weapons were intact or not, it is noted they were huge heaps of rusted metal mostly, and only the best examples were kept. Possibly what may have been implied was 'intact' examples ? as well as obviously those in better condition. As Manolo has suggested, the catalogues reflect many examples which were all intact from what I have seen. The most prominant armoury disassembly was of course Tanjore, and Elgood discusses this in "Hindu Arms and Ritual", huge numbers of items were acquired by Walhouse, who then furnished them to Oldman, whose catalogs are legion. Many of the items ended up with our sage of arms and armour, George Cameron Stone, who bequethed the majority to the Metropolitan Museum in New York.

Ariel,
I would like to thank you very much for so kindly posting the 'gaddara' entry from Pant, posting the page and especially for posting the magnificent example with it! I have been asking for posting of some of these entries in Pant as I do not have access to my copy and I know that many readers do not have copies, and the material is I think important in our discussions on Indian weapons.
I know I can only speak for myself, but I am sure many others are grateful as I am for your continued posts, observations and for answering the call as in this case. It is truly very much appreciated!

all very best regards,
Jim

fernando

16th September 2007, 07:54 PM

Well if he has got that many pieces thats incredible, he could build the most arms impresive museam in the world!

But its still true that If he looked at each piece for five minutes, non stop for 10 hours a day evry day it would take him 15years!

Its a pity there arnt more photos of his collection online.

Spiral

I see that you are at your best dividing 500 000 by time minutes ... without even a break for tea ( or pee ). :eek:
And what kind of 500 000 ... weapons or objects ? if it is objects, you can look to an entire row at same time. Therefore that is cheating :confused:
I have seen pictures with tulwars, samshirs and the like, stuffed in antique clay pots ... with a glimpse you can look at lots of them ... i can scan you pictures of these.
Come on Spiral?!
What has happened to your IQ ? :rolleyes:
Where did you pick that 500 000 figure from ?
Some guy without controll of decimals ?
I find it rather implausible, even considering the so many bullets he acquires from firemen who pick them from the bushes when they act in the area of Lisbon defences, built for the Napoleonic invasions in 1809 ... remember Wellington ?
I bought him some of these bullets ... as many as the ones he doesn't need to look at any more.
Judging by the kukris i have already seen at his shop, i wouln't be surpised if he had a good number of them in his private collection. I remeber seing years ago in his Cascais shop a huge one, with a blade about half meter long ( almost two feet in your language ). I don't know if this was a decoration piece or what but, if memory helps, it had a label warning for its dangerous sharpeness. Probably you also find this hard to beleive but, this time, it is i who stand above that :D
I also told Emanuel that he has several pieces spread by various Museums and exhibitions, so that is another quantity that he is prevented to look at :eek:
But if the amount of weaponry and accessory obects he holds is a matter for your preoccupation, i can phone the girl at the Amoreiras shop and ask her for the right number.
After all, and if the business is on the basis of presumption, i would advance that your kukris collection, as big as it may be, would fit in one of the drawers at his mannor house ... don't take it bad :shrug: .
And once you mentioned something about sword blades, i can tell you about a certain rapier blade that i bought the other day in a flea market and have posted in this Forum for apreciation. I had bought the thing for 50 euros and, when i showed it to him for identification, i don't know what he found in it that he offered me for it 500 euros discount in any piece i wanted to pick at his shop. This blade was surely usefull for him, as he told me that he had lots of others kept in "big bertha " cannon shells ... you know these, don't you ? ;) No need to tell he is a rather wealthy guy, and he surely buys anything interesting that moves around.
All the best
fernando

Emanuel

16th September 2007, 08:11 PM

fernando

16th September 2007, 08:33 PM

Pant defines Gaddara as a yelman-ed sword with a triangular point ( see attached pic from his book). He attributes the origin of the name to "gadar" : engaging in riot, mutiny.
I also show the so-called Irani Gaddara, with a typical Persian/Polish Karabela-type handle, all steel. The blade has incised panels on both sides, with remnants of gilding.
Indian swords with a double-edge segment at the tip are, IMHO, descendants of Kalachoori and you may wish to look at the very end of the thread
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4223
where Odevan and myself are trying to come up with the origins of that name.
Hi Ariel,
I am much obliged for your response, clarifying things for me and other interested members.
Your Irani-Gaddara is beautyfull.
I can see that the Pant's Gaddara specimen is rather different than the sword with same atribution depicted by Tirri, which is closer to the piece i am questioning. But i take it from you that the Pant's specimen is the real gaddara.
On the other hand i assimilate that neither looks like the piece i saw, which has a blade more curved than the one at Tirri's and doesn't have such a pronounced yelmen and triangular tip like in Pant's drawing. So i am considering the possibility of the piece i query on, being such Kalachoori descendent you mention, which eventually i had followed in the thread you started on the Kilij. I am now not so much inclined to buy it, as the price seems to be a bit exagerated. But if i will, or if at least i take some pictures of it, i will come back here to show it, to take any doubts.
Thanks once again.
fernando

fernando

16th September 2007, 10:43 PM

Hi Fernando,

The figure of five hundred thousand pieces is given by Antonio Conceicao on the link you provided :) . How many of these are weapons is open to debate I guess, but I assume Mr. Daenhardt would need some sort of warehouse besides his mannor to store them adequately.

Emanuel

Hi Emanuel
I have passed the link with no other intention than showing the only material plubished in the net with an aproach to Rainer Daehnhardt's collection. He seems not to worry to advance with some material himself, or even invite others to do it for him. I didn't even mind about the 500 000 pieces allusion, as i would never subscribe it, unless an extraordinary interpretation was added to support such aparently absurd figure. Otherwise and to put it elegantly, i would say this was a misprint.
I don't even know if Antonio noticed this, and or if has an explanation to that. Naturaly he doesn't even know i am using the link in this context, but it is published and has free access.
Some time ago i was talking to Daenhardt's shop senior employee about his collection universe, and she mentioned some figure where the term thousand was aplicable. I just don't remember how many thousands she mentioned, but surely not five hundred of them, i would say.
I think he might have some supporting storage facilities. Last time i have been there, he spoke about a house he had with large weapons quantities, which during the revolution period the left wing government wanted to nationalize, issuing a requisition for the house and the pieces. He has appealed against that measure and all he could get was to be paid for both house and collection, but he had to let them go. Maybe he has other facilities, i wouldn't be surprised.
Remember however that a great collection of manuscripts, maps, portolanos and that kind of stuff easily ascends to large amounts and doesn't require that much space to store, as relatively easy to stack in large numbers.
... in a consensual expression, of course.
Best regards
fernando

Jim McDougall

16th September 2007, 11:05 PM

Good call on the Charlemagne sword Manolo!!! It sure does bring that to mind.
Thank you for the note on the 'firangi' (and reference) !

All best regards,
Jim

fernando

16th September 2007, 11:28 PM

Hi Jim,
As usually, your postings are most generous,

With this being the case, it is quite easy to imagine someone as immersed in a literal sea of antiquities and historica as Mr. Daehnhardt, adding such detail in writing without reference.
Jim

Very well put. I used to be skeptical about his bombastic statements, before i became aware of his possibilities in terms of material and information gathered. Some time ago a connection i have in Australia wanted to know how his uncle, an old artillery reconstitution specialist, would reproduce gunpowder barrels, in terms of their marks in the old days. I have visited the museum of the oldest gunpowder Factory in Portugal, and found nothing. I later phoned the museum curators and they knew nothing about the subject. Just in case i decided to ask Rainer Daehnhardt if he could tell me something about this issue. Well, he told me he happened to have in his collection
several shipping inventories ( cargo manifests ) of the XVI century, and he knew by mind the marking system employed in the gunpowder barrels at the period. I have found this an amazing episode.
best regards
fernando

fernando

17th September 2007, 12:12 AM

Hi Spiral
here are some of the books written by Rainer Daehnhardt:

http://aeterna.no.sapo.pt/lusophia/publicacoes_rainer.htm
http://www.livapolo.pt/index.php?action=search&pag=1&tipo=1&expressao=3174&seq=1

Some time i will scan some beautyfull unique pieces he has exhibited around.
Regards
fernando

spiral

17th September 2007, 03:13 PM

I wouldn't know if the count is 500 000 items, but you must consider not only basic weaponry specimens but also periphericals, amunitions, accessories, documents and all sorts of devices.
I also ignore if the books he wrote are such sixty,

All the information I citeed came from the same website you then linked to. You might find worth reading? :D

. You know, when a guy is good and famous at something, he has more perrogatives to enhance his knowledge or even "invent" variations, than greyish folks. .

This is true, It doesnt make it neccasarily accurate though. :rolleyes:

About you having not read any of his works, you know the British phlegm ... Portuguese ? Discoveries? what in heck is that ? :cool:
. Even if they are poor stuff, one allways gets to now more than before he reads them.

I recall the portugese owned a fair bit of the world & only gave it up when forced to quite recently? & that the Portugese king bribed the Brit king with a gift of Bombay to get his ugly daughter married off many years ago ? Something like that anyway. ;) :D

All western Europe did ok at ransacking the thirld world when we had guns & cannons & the natives didnt. :p

i also agree I to try learn from evry blade or book. :)

Judging by the kukris i have already seen at his shop, i wouln't be surpised if he had a good number of them in his private collection. I remeber seing years ago in his Cascais shop a huge one, with a blade about half meter long ( almost two feet in your language ). I don't know if this was a decoration piece or what but, if memory helps, it had a label warning for its dangerous sharpeness. Probably you also find this hard to beleive but, this time, it is i who stand above that

Sounds good, ones that size are usualy either for tourists or beheading buffalo at festival time. A few old rare warriers ones also reached that size.

spiral

17th September 2007, 03:14 PM

After all, and if the business is on the basis of presumption, i would advance that your kukris collection, as big as it may be, would fit in one of the drawers at his mannor house ... don't take it bad .

Thats cool, if money was of the that important thing to me I woud have married the American hieress who wanted me to a few years ago. :shrug:

Actualy I only keep examples of type & of course the best as well of the kukris I come across. Otherwise it seems boring, I dont collect by quantity. But each to there own. I know some collectors who keep evrything they buy.

I suggest you read up here & in litrature about tulwar etc. & then get him to sell you a realy good one. :D

I see that you are at your best dividing 500 000 by time minutes ... without even a break for tea ( or pee ).
And what kind of 500 000 ... weapons or objects ? if it is objects, you can look to an entire row at same time. Therefore that is cheating

I think youll find youve mentioned this more than I did? & if someone is daft enough to think they can look an entire row of hand made items & assume they know them then thats shows a great lack of understanding. :o

I have seen pictures with tulwars, samshirs and the like, stuffed in antique clay pots ... with a glimpse you can look at lots of them ... i can scan you pictures of these.

I want to see photos showing the many thousands, not a few stuffed in pots,etc. I see that in most houses I visit. :confused:

Exceptionaly one of the best or even unique Portuguese works from the XVIII century, ESPINGARDA PERFEITA = THE PERFECT GUN, was translated by him and a British called W. Keith Neal, and was selling for 10 pounds by Sotheby Parke Bernet, in 1974. Maybe you didn't exist at the time or were not old enough to buy books?! At leasdt i didn't see you around when i stayed in Britain for a couple months back in 1967

Well I see you are aware of my youthfull good looks! its true i only owned 3 or 4 gun books at that time I must admit, but used to shoot clay pigeons evry sunday morning & go rough shooting occasionly, if only you were there I could have learnt so much!

Lets, see, tulwar were stored without handles, India only had 29 kings in that time period, & tulwar handels in Tirris book show no rivets. O yes & you thought I made up the 500 000 figure. :eek: :D

mmmmmmmmmmmm

spiral

17th September 2007, 03:15 PM

Come on Spiral?!
What has happened to your IQ ?
Where did you pick that 500 000 figure from ?
Some guy without controll of decimals ?

I repeat, {as I obviously have to... :rolleyes: }
All the information I posted came from the same website you then linked to. You might it find worth reading? IQ is most of use when allied to a little practicality & common sense after all. ;)

Your favorite auther,dealer etc. obviously has a fantastic collection & would have much available knowledge, & I am sure wouldnt be concerned that I am not convinced by the theorys you have proposed, so far.

But thats ok. :D

Yours truly,
Spiral

fernando

17th September 2007, 11:38 PM

Hi Spiral

Let's keep sporty.

I see no point in getting off topic, like bringing Queens and ransackings to discussion, on a hill-feeling basis.

Is there something you didn't bear in my posting, that i must apologize for?

Shouldn't we stick back to coherency in the area of arms collecting and its immediate supporting argumentation, with more or less humor?

I already said i wouldn't subscribe the 500 000 pieces, as being either an implausible aproach or even a misprint. As i already transmitted in a previous posting to Emanuel, i have passed the link for purposes other than for picking on that number and give it such an importance. Besides, i have read the article a couple years ago and didn't even remember about such figure ... as not even a point worth for questioning. My attention went more for the rare weapons the guy has, that i would like to have myself.

I already posted here links with more than twenty of his books that remain on market on line. It is not so dificult to admit he has writen sixty in his all life.

Enhancing knowledge and "inventing" variations are implicitly inaccurate situations, at least in academic terms. Nobody said the contrary.

It is true that nothing is left from Portuguese colonianism ... which makes me proud. We were forced to leave the colonies ... don't you know other nations that were also forced to do it, sometimes by the might of one only man? But honestly i don't know what this has to do with old weapons collecting , or how it belongs to topic, even as a side efect.

Indeed Catarina de Bragança married Charles II in the XVII century. Some bad tongues say she was so ugly that she had to carry a great dowry for the Brit King to accept her. Some others say that such story was invented by the King's staff, to cover up his ineptitude at picking such an horrendous creature. But if you are one of those traditional tea drinkers, remember that was she who implemented such beverage costum in England. However i hardly see Dona Catarina as a weapons collector ... i don't know about Charles II.

Sometimes natives also had guns and cannons, only that Europeans had them or handled them better. But nobody does o.k. by ransaking anybody else. I don't see your point.

The mentioning of looking to several pieces in a row was naturally another figure of speech. Just a rebating to your keen intention of numbering the necessary years to look at the 500 000 pieces. I see you didn't catch my intent.

I wouldn't know what you mean by India only having 29 Kings in whatever period. What i have learnt and said in my posting was that Industani India had 64 Kings between XVI-XVIII centuries. Are you referring to this?

I told you i was expecting to see naked rivets in Tirris tulwars, like i see in many other swords i have, as also in the tulwar example i personnaly saw, and not surrounded by decoration efects. I have admited my lack of
knowledge? Why are you coming back to this subject?

I didn't say you made up the 500 000 figure, nor did it occur to me who might have told you that. And neither did you mention in the first place where you got it. But i immediately told you that whatever was the source, couldn't controll decimals ( another figure of speech). However and if you think it is worth, you are naturally free to discuss this point with Antonio Cejunior. It is a public link, and maybe he has an explanation for that figure.

I was the first to tell that the book author is not concerned over our poor profile discussions.

He is not my favourite dealer. He is the only actual antique arms seller established in the country. There is another one in Oporto but is only a
small shop, with a reduced number of pieces, together with other non relative curious.

Also Mr. Daehnhardt isn't my favourite author. I actually don't share his horizons, outside the strict weaponry matter. It just happens that he is practically the only guy around that wrote more than just a single or a couple books on old arms. I buy what shows up in the market on the theme. All i seek in his works is the pieces pictures, their detail info and historical data. Same as when i go to his shop/s and i buy ( or don't buy ) some item, and he prompts to freely lecture me on items that i brought along for his apreciation.
I think i have been clear on this subject.

But what theories am i proposing ? I have simply quoted a book, in response to a coment made by David, and you started spitefully hammering me like you had some kind of prejudice?!

You don't agree with the man's statement that in the XVI century, tulwars were stored separated from handles ? No problem, i make a note of that and, next time i visit him, i will find an oportunity to tell him that ... honestly.
Probably he will come up with some kind of justification.

I hope not to have tease you with my wording, by any means. If so, accept my apologies. But please be so gentle and don't look to tease me back. You are in clear advantage, as english is you mother language.

Keep well

fernando