Indian sword blades

Jim McDougall · 27th August 2005, 05:21 AM

Hi Jens,
I agree the measurement value data seems to apply very well to some of the observations and it is good to have established that material for future reference in researching these swords.The question on the virtually characteristic 'ricasso' feature on tulwars certainly remains inconclusive and debated.
Best regards,
Jim

The issue concerning 'small hands' and the size of the grips on many tulwar hilts is discussed by E.Jaiwent Paul in "By My Sword and Shield" (p.76) where he notes that physical size of individuals in earlier times was indeed typically smaller. However, he also offers the following observation, "...many swordsmiths say that a small hilt which is a tight fit for the hand gives rise to a sense of 'josh', a term difficult to render in English, but which may be translated as a combination of aggression, fervour and recklessness".
I'm not sure I agree with this idea, but it seems worthy of note and I cant help but think this concept may align with that of 'one wearing ones shorts too tight'!

Returning to the 'ricasso' dilemma, I think the basic reference on this stems from "The Indian Sword" by Rawson, which observes;
"...there is one obvious point of difference between Persian and Indian blades which may be mentioned. No Persian blade is known to have a feature which may be called the Indian Ricasso. This is a short flattened section at the root of the edge, which is shouldered into the bevel of the edge. The reason for its existence may have been to safeguard the index finger, which art shows to have been sometimes hooked round the front quillon of the hilt in India".
(the footnote cites a personal communication from a B.W.Robinson of the metalwork dept. at the Victoria & Albert Museum as the source for this data).
It is interesting to note that Rawson specifically states that 'art' does show this practice being used, unfortunately no reference is given as to what 'art' is being cited.

This material from Rawson seems to have firmly placed this explanation for this virtually consistant feature of Indian tulwar blades in the lore of Indian arms. In the later work of G.N. Pant, "Indian Arms & Armour" , Dr.Pant does take exception to a number of statements and material in the work of both Rawson and the seminal work by Egerton, but surprisingly seems to concur with Rawsons notes on the 'ricasso'. Pant observes that the [Indian] ricasso is "...a square shaped space, generally of 2" is left blunt and unsharpened just below the tang, and is called ricasso (locally 'khajana'). This saves the fingers from being cut as some of them slip out of the quillons at the time of wielding. This feature is not found on the shamshirs but is invariably found on the tulwars". (p.31).
Here, once again, no specific reference is given to support these observations.

It would appear that Rawson was confident in the data concerning the hooked finger on the blade that he received from Mr. Robinson. As earlier posted, the article by Anthony North, also formerly of the Victoria & Albert, made note of the finger hooking practice in Italian and Spanish swordsmanship. Perhaps that established practice, noted as represented in European artwork, was recalled in evaluating the Indian swords...but Rawsons note as worded suggests the practice shown is in Indian artwork...but which...where?

It is noted in the North/Buttin material that with the finger hooking practice used in Italy and Spain, it was important to have finger guards to protect the finger. The drooping quillon is seen on many sword forms in these swords to provide such protection. I think here it is important to note the 'palouar', the Afghan version of the tulwar, which has such drooping quillons presumably to that end......and carries a pronounced ricasso.

Although I agree the idea of placing the index finger precariously outside the protection of the guard seems an inherently bad idea, it seems important to present the observations of established authorities on these swords and thier use, without really issuing conclusive statements. This material is presented simply as evidence that may be helpful in further discussion.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th August 2005, 04:57 PM

Hi Jim,

As I don’t know much about the ricasso, and especially not why it was used, I would prefer to wait discussing it till I know more. There are several possibilities, some more likely than others, but it will have to wait.

Jens

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2005, 12:09 AM

Hi Jens,
I must also concede to having little 'working' knowledge of the ricasso, and rely more on the observations of those who study the martial aspects of these weapons for that perspective. The material I have discovered and referenced from various sources concerning published reference to both the ricasso and practice of placement of finger around the quillon is simply noted to present established data on the topic. It seems very clear that no conclusions can possibly be drawn on most of this data and those who review it can use it to establish thier own observations. I always hope that someone reading this material might have material that would either support or rebut that which I have cited.

In further thinking on the tulwar it seems important to note characteristics of certain types. The quillons on the tulwar actually seem vestigial and poorly suited for guarding, which agrees with the idea that sword to sword combat with these seemed unlikely. This brings about the forms which have the knucklebow added, a feature which would suggest such sword to sword combat. Were these types mounted with ricassoed blades as well?

I keep coming back to the very presence of the ricasso, if not for the safety of a forefinger, then why was it there? Its presence is pronounced on the Afghan paluoar, which actually does have the drooping quillons that would protect the finger.

Although it seems we have deviated from the original course of this thread somewhat, we actually are still considering the hilt sizes as measured, and the feasibility of looping forefinger outside the area of the crossguard/quillons accounting for the smaller size on some hilts. The mysterious Indian ricasso and its purpose seem very pertinant here and hopefully we can at least review the collective data on it....long way to go yet

All the best,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 24th May 2006, 04:55 PM

In Babur-Nama I found this.
(Authors note on the kuroh) [must be the translators notes].
These kurohs were established in relation to the mil, in the way mentioned in the Mubin:
(Turki) Four thousand paces (qadam) are one mil;
know that Hind People call this a kuroh;
the pace (qadam) they say is a qari and a half (36in.);
know that each qari (24in.) is six hands-breadths (tutam)
that each tutam is four fingers (ailik),
each ailik 6 barley-corns.
The measuring-cord (tanab) was fixed at 40 qari, each being the one-and-a-half qari mentioned above, that is to say, each is 9 hand-breadths. (The tanab was thus 120ft. long).

Now, if you take ‘The Wonder that was India’, and have a look at page 503, you will see, like Jim correctly wrote earlier, that 8 yava (barley-corns) = 1 angula (fingers breadth, ¾ in.).

Now the interesting thing comes.
In B-N they say that a qari is 24 in. or six hand-breadths = one hand breadth = 4 in. As a hand-breadth is defined as being 4 fingers, 1 finger would be 1 inch.
In ‘The Wonder that was India’ the author says 1 angula is ¾ in, this gives 3 in. to four fingers, and that is what my tulwar hilts measure – 3 in.

Mil/kuroh = 4000 paces = 144.000 inches = 12.000 feet = 4000 yards
Qari = six hand-breaths (1 hand = 1 tutam) = 24 inches
Tutam = 4 fingers (ailik) = 4 inches
1 ailik = 6 barley-corns = 1 inch
1 barley-corn = 0.167 inches

In the B-N 6 barley-corns are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = 1”.

In The wonder.. 8 yava (barley-corns) are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = ¾”.

It is strange that they used a different number of barley-corns, and it is even more strange that 6 corns equals 1”, and 8 corns equal ¾”.

We know that a good blade should be so an so many ailiks/angulas – this was important, and it is also known that the Hindus used the blade length when they wanted a horoscope made. We know that Babur had towers build along the roads at certain intervals, like our milestones in the old days. This is odd, as the length of the blades, the width of the hilts, building of houses, distances on the road – it should all be measures by the same measure. Can anyone explain this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27th August 2005, 05:21 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Jens, I agree the measurement value data seems to apply very well to some of the observations and it is good to have established that material for future reference in researching these swords.The question on the virtually characteristic 'ricasso' feature on tulwars certainly remains inconclusive and debated. Best regards, Jim The issue concerning 'small hands' and the size of the grips on many tulwar hilts is discussed by E.Jaiwent Paul in "By My Sword and Shield" (p.76) where he notes that physical size of individuals in earlier times was indeed typically smaller. However, he also offers the following observation, "...many swordsmiths say that a small hilt which is a tight fit for the hand gives rise to a sense of 'josh', a term difficult to render in English, but which may be translated as a combination of aggression, fervour and recklessness". I'm not sure I agree with this idea, but it seems worthy of note and I cant help but think this concept may align with that of 'one wearing ones shorts too tight'! Returning to the 'ricasso' dilemma, I think the basic reference on this stems from "The Indian Sword" by Rawson, which observes; "...there is one obvious point of difference between Persian and Indian blades which may be mentioned. No Persian blade is known to have a feature which may be called the Indian Ricasso. This is a short flattened section at the root of the edge, which is shouldered into the bevel of the edge. The reason for its existence may have been to safeguard the index finger, which art shows to have been sometimes hooked round the front quillon of the hilt in India". (the footnote cites a personal communication from a B.W.Robinson of the metalwork dept. at the Victoria & Albert Museum as the source for this data). It is interesting to note that Rawson specifically states that 'art' does show this practice being used, unfortunately no reference is given as to what 'art' is being cited. This material from Rawson seems to have firmly placed this explanation for this virtually consistant feature of Indian tulwar blades in the lore of Indian arms. In the later work of G.N. Pant, "Indian Arms & Armour" , Dr.Pant does take exception to a number of statements and material in the work of both Rawson and the seminal work by Egerton, but surprisingly seems to concur with Rawsons notes on the 'ricasso'. Pant observes that the [Indian] ricasso is "...a square shaped space, generally of 2" is left blunt and unsharpened just below the tang, and is called ricasso (locally 'khajana'). This saves the fingers from being cut as some of them slip out of the quillons at the time of wielding. This feature is not found on the shamshirs but is invariably found on the tulwars". (p.31). Here, once again, no specific reference is given to support these observations. It would appear that Rawson was confident in the data concerning the hooked finger on the blade that he received from Mr. Robinson. As earlier posted, the article by Anthony North, also formerly of the Victoria & Albert, made note of the finger hooking practice in Italian and Spanish swordsmanship. Perhaps that established practice, noted as represented in European artwork, was recalled in evaluating the Indian swords...but Rawsons note as worded suggests the practice shown is in Indian artwork...but which...where? It is noted in the North/Buttin material that with the finger hooking practice used in Italy and Spain, it was important to have finger guards to protect the finger. The drooping quillon is seen on many sword forms in these swords to provide such protection. I think here it is important to note the 'palouar', the Afghan version of the tulwar, which has such drooping quillons presumably to that end......and carries a pronounced ricasso. Although I agree the idea of placing the index finger precariously outside the protection of the guard seems an inherently bad idea, it seems important to present the observations of established authorities on these swords and thier use, without really issuing conclusive statements. This material is presented simply as evidence that may be helpful in further discussion.

27th August 2005, 04:57 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, As I don’t know much about the ricasso, and especially not why it was used, I would prefer to wait discussing it till I know more. There are several possibilities, some more likely than others, but it will have to wait. Jens

28th August 2005, 12:09 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Jens, I must also concede to having little 'working' knowledge of the ricasso, and rely more on the observations of those who study the martial aspects of these weapons for that perspective. The material I have discovered and referenced from various sources concerning published reference to both the ricasso and practice of placement of finger around the quillon is simply noted to present established data on the topic. It seems very clear that no conclusions can possibly be drawn on most of this data and those who review it can use it to establish thier own observations. I always hope that someone reading this material might have material that would either support or rebut that which I have cited. In further thinking on the tulwar it seems important to note characteristics of certain types. The quillons on the tulwar actually seem vestigial and poorly suited for guarding, which agrees with the idea that sword to sword combat with these seemed unlikely. This brings about the forms which have the knucklebow added, a feature which would suggest such sword to sword combat. Were these types mounted with ricassoed blades as well? I keep coming back to the very presence of the ricasso, if not for the safety of a forefinger, then why was it there? Its presence is pronounced on the Afghan paluoar, which actually does have the drooping quillons that would protect the finger. Although it seems we have deviated from the original course of this thread somewhat, we actually are still considering the hilt sizes as measured, and the feasibility of looping forefinger outside the area of the crossguard/quillons accounting for the smaller size on some hilts. The mysterious Indian ricasso and its purpose seem very pertinant here and hopefully we can at least review the collective data on it....long way to go yet All the best, Jim

24th May 2006, 04:55 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	In Babur-Nama I found this. (Authors note on the kuroh) [must be the translators notes]. These kurohs were established in relation to the mil, in the way mentioned in the Mubin: (Turki) Four thousand paces (qadam) are one mil; know that Hind People call this a kuroh; the pace (qadam) they say is a qari and a half (36in.); know that each qari (24in.) is six hands-breadths (tutam) that each tutam is four fingers (ailik), each ailik 6 barley-corns. The measuring-cord (tanab) was fixed at 40 qari, each being the one-and-a-half qari mentioned above, that is to say, each is 9 hand-breadths. (The tanab was thus 120ft. long). Now, if you take ‘The Wonder that was India’, and have a look at page 503, you will see, like Jim correctly wrote earlier, that 8 yava (barley-corns) = 1 angula (fingers breadth, ¾ in.). Now the interesting thing comes. In B-N they say that a qari is 24 in. or six hand-breadths = one hand breadth = 4 in. As a hand-breadth is defined as being 4 fingers, 1 finger would be 1 inch. In ‘The Wonder that was India’ the author says 1 angula is ¾ in, this gives 3 in. to four fingers, and that is what my tulwar hilts measure – 3 in. Mil/kuroh = 4000 paces = 144.000 inches = 12.000 feet = 4000 yards Qari = six hand-breaths (1 hand = 1 tutam) = 24 inches Tutam = 4 fingers (ailik) = 4 inches 1 ailik = 6 barley-corns = 1 inch 1 barley-corn = 0.167 inches In the B-N 6 barley-corns are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = 1”. In The wonder.. 8 yava (barley-corns) are = 1 ailik/angula (fingers breadth) = ¾”. It is strange that they used a different number of barley-corns, and it is even more strange that 6 corns equals 1”, and 8 corns equal ¾”. We know that a good blade should be so an so many ailiks/angulas – this was important, and it is also known that the Hindus used the blade length when they wanted a horoscope made. We know that Babur had towers build along the roads at certain intervals, like our milestones in the old days. This is odd, as the length of the blades, the width of the hilts, building of houses, distances on the road – it should all be measures by the same measure. Can anyone explain this?