Very well said Ariel, and thank you.
In the photos you have shown Edward, the first two are what are regarded as 'ancient' forms of 'khanda' which correspond to forms seen in iconographic sources, and existed in a spectrum of similar forms over many centuries.
The 'winged' guard as described was a commonly known feature.
In the next photo (left) is the tulwar of discussion, which has the raised half guard and seems plausibly influenced by such features found on some 'chilanum' daggers, a knife typically regarded as Deccani. This broad area of influence covers roughly the entire central band of the Subcontinent. These broad regions are most dynamic through diversity of cultures, religious and tribal, as well as the incursion of foreign trade and colonial factions.
Next (right) is the 'Hindu basket hilt' which is essentially a khanda which derives from the ancient form, but is believed to have the wide guard extended to complete a hand guard up to the pommel. This is generally held to have evolved from European influence post 1600 and with Marathas, filtering into Rajput and Sikh use as well.
Next is another of these. Then another of the 'ancient' indiginous khanda forms.
The next two are tulwars (Indo Persian hilt) the one on the left is Mughal and open hilt, which I personally regard as 'court' type weapons, usually highly decorated and with no extended guarded hilt features. Naturally there is nothing to preclude actual combat use or other........but Rajput and Sikh used usually hand guard forms.
These are seen on the right photo.
It was once declared in Stone (1934) that the katar (transverse grip) puch dagger was an exclusively Hindu weapon. That assessment was quickly discounted by the many Mughal examples known.
Your note on personal preferences due to issues with some hilt features for on reason or another is certainly a matter of incidence, but not a cause for alteration of a hilt feature in general. These kinds of things took place in European settings with some military sword types (British 1796 disc hilts cut down due to uniform chafing), but Indian weaponry was hardly regulation, and varied in often wide degree.
As Ariel has well noted, here we are a discussion forum, and we are free to express ideas, observations, and examination of examples where we all expect critical comments. Quite frankly I much appreciate your open expression and thought through comments, and always appreciate anyone ready to take on the daunting challenges of classifying Indian arms.
We are all learning together, and helping each other do so.
Thanks for the great input.
