Indian? sword for ID

Jim McDougall · 21st December 2006, 02:05 AM

Excellent observations Jens! I am inclined to opt for the Nepalese possibility as well, over the Tibetan. Tibetan swords typically exhibit the distinctive hairpin pattern welded blades which also preserve the ancient Sui and Tang profiles which later were carried into the familiar Japanese blades. These are also characteristic on Bhutanese swords.
In Nepal, however, there was considerable diffusion of weaponry from India and other regions to the south. It would seem that numerous weapons found in these regions reflect atavistic influence from iconographic sources that may include forms from ancient Greek weapons.

While the interesting pommel does reflect the Tibetan 'dorje' element, as I noted there are certain features in the structure of the hilt that recall distinct Indian influence. Most notable perhaps, would be the unusual 'skirted' form of the lower hilt, which appears in variation on numerous Mughal jade dagger hilts, and mostly of latter 17th thru the 18th c. These are of course mostly from N.India (though Mysore examples are noted) and are shown in a number of examples in Pant (p.205; #607, #609, #611).

It seems entirely plausible that in Nepal, a ceremonial sword might carry influences from both Tibet, to the north, with Tantric elements as well as the aesthetics of Mughal weapons to the south. We know that the kukri was well established in India, though thought of as indiginous to Nepal, and that there are tulwar hilted koras as well as kukris.

I found some interesting notes concerning swords in Bhutan, which may have some bearing on the use of ceremonial swords in Nepal in some degree as well via the influences that seem to diffuse in these regions.
In "Bhutan,Land of the Thunder Dragon" by Burt Kerr Todd (National Geographic, Vol.CII, #6, Dec.1952), the author notes that "...the 'pathang' or ceremonial sword is reserved for wear in or around the dzongs (forts) that dot the countryside. Without the sword, and the appropriate shawl to show his rank, he is not permitted within these centers of Bhutanese central life".

I think these factors may support a Nepalese origin for this sword, as Jens has suggested, as well as his notes on the early iconography in Nepal that depicts this ancient blade form, which is interestingly very similar to the Greek 'phasganon' (Burton, fig.254).

Best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 21st December 2006, 05:15 PM

Hi Jim,
Yes I think we got it, it must be Nepalese. Interesting that this blade type was used over a very large area.

Hi Katana,
You wrote about the balance, but these blades were not very thick, so the balance can have been all right, besides, if it was a ceremonial sword, I don’t think it would have mattered a lot.

Joe · 22nd December 2006, 06:24 AM

I'm inclined to believe you guys on your Nepalese conclusion.

Does anyone have any pics showing a sword of this type with a more Nepalese mounting style?

Also, working one the conclusion that the blade is Indian, could it be classified as a Pattisa blade?

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd December 2006, 04:17 PM

Hi Joe,

Whether the blade was made in India or in Nepal, it is what the Indians would call a Pattisa blade, although the hilt is quite different.

We have a problem here, part of a never-ending discussion, is a sword classified after the blade or after the hilt? A tulwar is a tulwar, be course of the hilt, although the blade can differ a lot. You could call a sword a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or a tulwar with an Indian blade. This would however indicate that the shamshir blades were made outside India, but shamshir blades were also made in India. It really is very complex, so I think the best would be to describe a sword, not using one word only, if it is not a prototype, but to give a short description.

Here is a picture of a Nepalese bronze from 15th/16th century, it is clear to see that the blade is nor fastened with rivets, but with two bands around the blade reinforcement. The hilt is quite different, and would have been held in a different way, but the blade type is the same.

B.I · 22nd December 2006, 07:03 PM

Hi Jens,
I agree that this early form of sword was used throughout Indian and Nepal, and is apparant in sculpture in both medieaval, and post medieaval times. The scrulpture you mention shows this very clearly. However, I think that the langet on all od these swords held the blades via rivets. The 'bands' across the langet are decorative, and no doubt hold some purpose, possibly symbolic. If you look at Rawson (Danish versian) plate 13 and 14, these bands are clearly shown. Plate 13 has the band at the bottom of the langet, but the blade is riveted on. Rawson calls this sword 18thC, but I believe this to date at least 200 years earlier (it is called 'ancient Nepalese by Egerton). This is indeed an early Nepalese sword, and I know of one other example of this extremely rare sword in a private collection.
Fig 14 is a more classically shaped 'patissa', with a band around the langet. this is more than likely loose, and so does not represent a strengthening use. There is another example in the British Museum, shown in Elgoods Hindu Arms, and another in that same private colection mentioned earlier. The band in the example in the private collection is silver and loose, and looks of the same construction as the BM and Copenhagen pieces, hence the assumptions.

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd December 2006, 09:31 PM

Yes I agree with you that Rawson may have hinted a few hundred years later than it is, but if you go further back, I think the blades were fastened with hides. Wet hides will, when they dry, held a blade very close. Later I think they used metal, but then again it is a guess.

22nd December 2006, 04:17 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Joe, Whether the blade was made in India or in Nepal, it is what the Indians would call a Pattisa blade, although the hilt is quite different. We have a problem here, part of a never-ending discussion, is a sword classified after the blade or after the hilt? A tulwar is a tulwar, be course of the hilt, although the blade can differ a lot. You could call a sword a tulwar with a shamshir blade, or a tulwar with an Indian blade. This would however indicate that the shamshir blades were made outside India, but shamshir blades were also made in India. It really is very complex, so I think the best would be to describe a sword, not using one word only, if it is not a prototype, but to give a short description. Here is a picture of a Nepalese bronze from 15th/16th century, it is clear to see that the blade is nor fastened with rivets, but with two bands around the blade reinforcement. The hilt is quite different, and would have been held in a different way, but the blade type is the same. Attached Images

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

21st December 2006, 02:05 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,295	Excellent observations Jens! I am inclined to opt for the Nepalese possibility as well, over the Tibetan. Tibetan swords typically exhibit the distinctive hairpin pattern welded blades which also preserve the ancient Sui and Tang profiles which later were carried into the familiar Japanese blades. These are also characteristic on Bhutanese swords. In Nepal, however, there was considerable diffusion of weaponry from India and other regions to the south. It would seem that numerous weapons found in these regions reflect atavistic influence from iconographic sources that may include forms from ancient Greek weapons. While the interesting pommel does reflect the Tibetan 'dorje' element, as I noted there are certain features in the structure of the hilt that recall distinct Indian influence. Most notable perhaps, would be the unusual 'skirted' form of the lower hilt, which appears in variation on numerous Mughal jade dagger hilts, and mostly of latter 17th thru the 18th c. These are of course mostly from N.India (though Mysore examples are noted) and are shown in a number of examples in Pant (p.205; #607, #609, #611). It seems entirely plausible that in Nepal, a ceremonial sword might carry influences from both Tibet, to the north, with Tantric elements as well as the aesthetics of Mughal weapons to the south. We know that the kukri was well established in India, though thought of as indiginous to Nepal, and that there are tulwar hilted koras as well as kukris. I found some interesting notes concerning swords in Bhutan, which may have some bearing on the use of ceremonial swords in Nepal in some degree as well via the influences that seem to diffuse in these regions. In "Bhutan,Land of the Thunder Dragon" by Burt Kerr Todd (National Geographic, Vol.CII, #6, Dec.1952), the author notes that "...the 'pathang' or ceremonial sword is reserved for wear in or around the dzongs (forts) that dot the countryside. Without the sword, and the appropriate shawl to show his rank, he is not permitted within these centers of Bhutanese central life". I think these factors may support a Nepalese origin for this sword, as Jens has suggested, as well as his notes on the early iconography in Nepal that depicts this ancient blade form, which is interestingly very similar to the Greek 'phasganon' (Burton, fig.254). Best regards, Jim

21st December 2006, 05:15 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, Yes I think we got it, it must be Nepalese. Interesting that this blade type was used over a very large area. Hi Katana, You wrote about the balance, but these blades were not very thick, so the balance can have been all right, besides, if it was a ceremonial sword, I don’t think it would have mattered a lot.

22nd December 2006, 06:24 AM	#3
Joe Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: McDonough, GA Posts: 48	I'm inclined to believe you guys on your Nepalese conclusion. Does anyone have any pics showing a sword of this type with a more Nepalese mounting style? Also, working one the conclusion that the blade is Indian, could it be classified as a Pattisa blade?

22nd December 2006, 07:03 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Jens, I agree that this early form of sword was used throughout Indian and Nepal, and is apparant in sculpture in both medieaval, and post medieaval times. The scrulpture you mention shows this very clearly. However, I think that the langet on all od these swords held the blades via rivets. The 'bands' across the langet are decorative, and no doubt hold some purpose, possibly symbolic. If you look at Rawson (Danish versian) plate 13 and 14, these bands are clearly shown. Plate 13 has the band at the bottom of the langet, but the blade is riveted on. Rawson calls this sword 18thC, but I believe this to date at least 200 years earlier (it is called 'ancient Nepalese by Egerton). This is indeed an early Nepalese sword, and I know of one other example of this extremely rare sword in a private collection. Fig 14 is a more classically shaped 'patissa', with a band around the langet. this is more than likely loose, and so does not represent a strengthening use. There is another example in the British Museum, shown in Elgoods Hindu Arms, and another in that same private colection mentioned earlier. The band in the example in the private collection is silver and loose, and looks of the same construction as the BM and Copenhagen pieces, hence the assumptions.

23rd December 2006, 09:31 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes I agree with you that Rawson may have hinted a few hundred years later than it is, but if you go further back, I think the blades were fastened with hides. Wet hides will, when they dry, held a blade very close. Later I think they used metal, but then again it is a guess.