Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A.alnakkas
Hello,
What Jim said pretty much. But am interested in the blade, its missing a riccaso which makes me think its not indian manufacture?
|
Spot on Lofty! Exactly as Stan pointed out in his post, characteristically Indian made blades will have that distinct ricasso which was effectively to allow protection for the forefinger often wrapped over the quillon in Indian sword technique with tulwars.
This is more likely an apparantly well worn European blade, and not likely Persian as it does not actually have the features of those shamshir blades.
Even when 'tulwars' are mounted with shamshir blades in India (quite common actually in Mughal courts) they are typically termed tulwar as this is of course the word in general for sword there.
There are tulwars with Persian style hilts rather than the Indo-Persian disc pommel types, again called 'tulwar' but with Persian form hilt noted.
I would add here that in Tirri, there are examples of tulwars sans the disc pommel which he notes are removed as per Afghan fighting preference, which seems correct. I have actually seen tulwar forms which appeared to have been produced without the pommel disc, one in discussions with a British Brigadier who took it from a tribesman in fighting on plains near Khyber regions in the 1930s.
Terminology in ethnographic weapons can be maddening!!!
