Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 21st January 2007, 03:31 PM

Hi Joe,
Fantastic response!!!! and absolutely you did not write too much!!!

If I may say so, you've addressed all aspects of where we are in the discussion in a beautifully organized and well thought out and detailed post. It seems pretty clear we are on exactly the same page in our interpretations and speculations (opinions

and that is an incredibly rewarding situation. Sometimes there is so much banging heads in trying to discuss weaponry it seems helmets are needed!!!

Of course it is often necessary to really get anywhere and sort out what solutions may be most plausible, but great relief when agreement is found.

I like the individual assignment of independant and influenced origins of the klytch, nuiweidao and tulwar also. While the oxtails seem to have become popular around the beginning of the 19th c. I think the blade form had been around for a while earlier into the 18th century, at least that is what I got from research a few years ago on the Chinese ring pommel dadao. It seems that the biconcave curves on the reverse edge had developed on swords used in the 12th c. AD by Persian armies in India and elsewhere ("Islamic Arms & Armour of Muslim India" Dr.S.Haider, Lahore. 1991, p.169) and these are suggested to have borne the influence of swords painted on painted scrolls in China (Li Lung Mien 1085 AD). I have not see any example of that painting but the reference seems quite provocative and supportive of your note on the independant development of the blade form in China, which probably evolved from atavistic interpretation of course much later.

In discussion concerning the tulwar, it is interesting that Dr.Haider (op.cit.p.169) also notes that during Mongol conquests of Muslim territories resulted in Persian adoption of many of thier arms, and that these type swords with biconcave curves on reverse edge along with the straight type sword were ancestors of the subsequent forms used in Persia and Muslim India.
On p.170 (op.cit.) it is noted that a modified and improved version of what Burton has termed 'the old Turkish sword' with heavier biconcave curves (of the 'scimitar' shape) appeared in Persia c.1380 AD. Via the Timurids ruling Korasan exterting strong influence on Muslim India,this form seems to have
entered western India by the 15th century.
It is unclear when the profile of the tip became a more defined raised step type dorsal widening in the form we know distinctly as the yelman, or where this might have occurred. It does seem that this feature was present on the Polish and Hungarian sabres during the latter 15th century. I have seen tulwars with distinct yelmans from the 18th century, which form does not seem apparant on 19th c. blades. As far as the development of the tulwar hilt, I think the jury is still out , but that is presently being researched.

I agree that the Charlemagne sword is extremely intriguing and that dorsal ridge is incredibly long. If I am not mistaken, the sword is believed to be of Avar origin, these being the mysterious steppes nomads who are also believed to have been among the earliest users of sabres.

We could probably go on for days on the complexities of sabre development!!

Thanks very much Joe, for the detailed response, great photos and outstanding perspective!!

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. Now THIS is writing too much!!!

as everybody here knows, I'm the antithesis of laconic !!!

21st January 2007, 03:31 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,739	Hi Joe, Fantastic response!!!! and absolutely you did not write too much!!! If I may say so, you've addressed all aspects of where we are in the discussion in a beautifully organized and well thought out and detailed post. It seems pretty clear we are on exactly the same page in our interpretations and speculations (opinions and that is an incredibly rewarding situation. Sometimes there is so much banging heads in trying to discuss weaponry it seems helmets are needed!!! Of course it is often necessary to really get anywhere and sort out what solutions may be most plausible, but great relief when agreement is found. I like the individual assignment of independant and influenced origins of the klytch, nuiweidao and tulwar also. While the oxtails seem to have become popular around the beginning of the 19th c. I think the blade form had been around for a while earlier into the 18th century, at least that is what I got from research a few years ago on the Chinese ring pommel dadao. It seems that the biconcave curves on the reverse edge had developed on swords used in the 12th c. AD by Persian armies in India and elsewhere ("Islamic Arms & Armour of Muslim India" Dr.S.Haider, Lahore. 1991, p.169) and these are suggested to have borne the influence of swords painted on painted scrolls in China (Li Lung Mien 1085 AD). I have not see any example of that painting but the reference seems quite provocative and supportive of your note on the independant development of the blade form in China, which probably evolved from atavistic interpretation of course much later. In discussion concerning the tulwar, it is interesting that Dr.Haider (op.cit.p.169) also notes that during Mongol conquests of Muslim territories resulted in Persian adoption of many of thier arms, and that these type swords with biconcave curves on reverse edge along with the straight type sword were ancestors of the subsequent forms used in Persia and Muslim India. On p.170 (op.cit.) it is noted that a modified and improved version of what Burton has termed 'the old Turkish sword' with heavier biconcave curves (of the 'scimitar' shape) appeared in Persia c.1380 AD. Via the Timurids ruling Korasan exterting strong influence on Muslim India,this form seems to have entered western India by the 15th century. It is unclear when the profile of the tip became a more defined raised step type dorsal widening in the form we know distinctly as the yelman, or where this might have occurred. It does seem that this feature was present on the Polish and Hungarian sabres during the latter 15th century. I have seen tulwars with distinct yelmans from the 18th century, which form does not seem apparant on 19th c. blades. As far as the development of the tulwar hilt, I think the jury is still out , but that is presently being researched. I agree that the Charlemagne sword is extremely intriguing and that dorsal ridge is incredibly long. If I am not mistaken, the sword is believed to be of Avar origin, these being the mysterious steppes nomads who are also believed to have been among the earliest users of sabres. We could probably go on for days on the complexities of sabre development!! Thanks very much Joe, for the detailed response, great photos and outstanding perspective!! All very best regards, Jim P.S. Now THIS is writing too much!!! as everybody here knows, I'm the antithesis of laconic !!! Last edited by Jim McDougall; 21st January 2007 at 04:06 PM.