Tulwar Hilt Types

[Jens Nordlunde]

Greg, this is not an easy way you have started to walk – but it most surely is an interesting one. Taking an interest in the early history of India, as well as different Indian arts and architecture will help. So when you have read a stack of books on these and other subject on Indian arts, and decided which authors you believe in, as some use texts from others, but rewrite it, so it can be difficult to see from where it is; then you are on the right road – and start to regard all information’s with scepticism from the start, till you are satisfied yourself. To have a theory is always good, but one must remember that it is a theory till proven.

I have made some research on the shown diamond shaped tulwar hilt, you can see the result below, before you do, you should notice that these hilts come in slim, medium and extra large, like most of the other hilts.

This tulwar comes from Udaipur, but it does not prove that this hilt type origins from there like Pant claimed - but never proved. However, he could be right, but as he is dead now, it is up to the rest of us to prove it – if it can be proven.

This tulwar has a hilt of diamond shape, with relatively long, slender quillons, flat at the end. The langets are long, slim and cut off straight at the end. The disc pommel is relatively large, placed in a right angle to the grip, with a sun with rays at the top, and the flower in the middle ends in a short spike. The decoration, is very easily recognised, is in a floral motif in gold koft gari.

The blade is pattern welded in an almost step pattern. It has two short fullers at each side of the langets, ending with three dots. Two long fullers along the blade, one ending at the false edge, and the other further down, both start and end with three dots.

Total length 88.5 cm. Length of blade 76 cm. Ricasso 6 cm. Hilt 18.5 cm. Disc 7.4 cm. Width of quillons 10.4 cm. Length of langet 6.9 cm.

Inscriptions:

On the back of the blade, near the hilt an inscription in Arabic letters reading ‘Shaika Nanhu Musavi’. The inscription is in Urdu and translates to ‘The Honourable young Musavi’. Musavi is a common Muslim name, and Musa is derived from the Jewish name Moses.

Under the disc, around the edge of the grip is another inscription in Devnagiri, reading ‘Shri JodhSinghji S(a)l B (‘B’ stands for Bahadur, a prominent religious deity in Gujarat/Kutch.) 1927’. The year 1927 is given in the Vikrama Samvat era and corresponds to 1870-71 AD, during the rule of Rao Jodh Singh II of. Salumbar. And so the translation potentially reads ‘Shri (a title given to royalty) Jodh Singh Bahadur Salumbar 1927’.

The second part of the text says, ‘Maharaja Dhi Raj Shri Maha Rao (N) Ji Shri’, and translates roughly as ‘His Royal Magnificent Highness’.

Salumbar (Thikana) was a small kingdom in Udaipur, which is among one of the most prestigious states of the Hindu state of Mewar. As Salumbar was part of Udaipur/Mewar they paid tribute to the ruler of Udaipur.

The main part of the Mewar Rajput rulers belonged to the Sisodiya clan, of which there are several branches and sub branches.

The Guhilots ruled Mewar from the 8th to the 14th century, and the Sisodias ruled from the 14th and they are still Maharajas of Mewar.

When the rule by the Sisodias of the Chundawat clan started in Salumbar is not clear, but the first ruler was Rawat Chunda Singh, who was succeeded by his son Rawat Kandhal Singh, who again was succeeded by his son Rawat Ratan Singh I, who died in 1527, so their rule goes back for centuries. The present Rawat of the same old family, the twenty-eight, Rawat Devrath Singh, Succeeded his father who died in 2002.

In 1901 the population is said to have been 31’000, so it was a relatively small state.

Rao Jodh Singh II was the 24th ruler, borne 1833 in Bambora, ruling from 1863 to 1901(?) He adopted Kunwar (A title given to the son of a ruler during his father’s lifetime.) Tej Singh, the third son of Rao Bhupal Singh of Bhadesar. Tej Singh died young, and so the fourth son of Rao Bupal Singh was adopted, but did not succeed there, as Onar Singh in 1901 was the next Rao of Salumbar.

The families of Salumbar and Bhadesar were related, as the first ruler of Bhadesar, Rao Bhairav Singh was the second son of Rao Bhim Singh, the 19th ruler of Salumbar.

BTW please keep you pictures together. I suppose that your pictures 1, 2 and 5 are of the same object, and that pictures 3 and forur are from the same hilt.

[Jim McDougall]

Now thats what I'm talkin' about!!!!
This is tulwar research of the most quintessant degree!!! and characteristic of the kind of work done by Jens.

This magnificent example, with well researched data in the markings and motif reflect that the sword is from Mewar in Udaipur and the period, as well as the inscriptions revealing the syncretic associations of faiths clearly extant in diplomatic parlance of the time.
While this example seems to support the claims by the late Dr. Pant as this being an Udaipur form of hilt, there still needs to be other corroborating examples with this magnitude of provenance to establish this form conclusively as to this region alone.
We can however state, that generally these types of diamond shape (peaked grip) hilt with square end langets and very large dish pommel are likely produced in Udaipur regions.

Greg, often with identification of these types of examples, it is best to classify them as 'of the form typically attributed to Udaipur' for example.
The other forms discussed are typically with less definition, and we always try to find these kinds of provenance on forms to be joined with other similar examples and hopefully establishing at least a degree of guidelines for further research.

The quest never ends


Absolutely magnificent Jens!!! Thank you so much for providing such an excellent example to perfectly illustrate this research.


All very best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Jim. It was nice of you to write, as no one else seems to be interested any more.

There are a few things, which I should have mentioned, but now I have the opportunity to do so. Seeing weapons in Indian armouries, or weapons marked in the different armouries, is most interesting, but you must be aware of a few things. The weapons could have been made at the armoury, but they don’t have to be, although marked at the armoury the reason for this are the many wars going on in India during the centuries, and with the wars came the looting, so the weapons may have changed hands many times, and come from many different places, before they end up in our collections.

An example could be the Raja’s of Bikaner, as many of them served in the Mughal army as officers and were highly decorated, as the soldiers of Bikaner were regarded some of the best. On Raja especially (sorry I can’t recall his name at the moment) participated in a lot of battles, often as a general, and ended up as governor of Deccan for twenty years. What he ‘collected’ after all his battles, we can’t know; but one thing is sure – what he collected of weapons he sent back to the Bikaner armoury, where it was dot marked. So in many of the Rajasthan armouries you will find weapons, marked or not, for a lot of different places in India.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jens,
It seems one of the unfortunate realities that some individuals seem to ask questions on very pertinant topics, and when responses are made, we have no way of knowing whether the efforts extended were of any use as they simply do not make note or courtesy responses.

I would think that out of courtesy, one would follow up on thier posts, and try to make a comment or thank you. Sometimes maybe they are having computer trouble or a hard time at work or who knows, in any case, it clearly is often disappointing.

I do know that most of my writing is often for my own learning , which comes from the research necessary to write on the topics I address, and I complete the posts to hopefully share what I have found with others. Despite the lack of response which is sometimes apparant, the information extended by those of us participating and shared is typically pertinant in some degree, and often serves for future research for those who do use the search functions here.

I always get excited when I see topics concerning Indian arms, as it does seem the subject becomes dormant frequently, and I am always hoping for new entries. Thanks again!

All very best regards,
Jim

[KuKulzA28]

I'd just like to say, please carry on... all this hilt variation and all is a bit confusing but I am reading and re-reading... thanks for being good researchers and fountains of knowledge.

[sta94]

Great info guys, highly appreciated. I'm just a beginner in the serious study of this subject matter (swords from South Asia and neighboring areas) and appreciate any relevant info. I find myself in India fairly often these days and am planning to look up museums with decent arms collections.

[Mefidk]

I too find this topic very interesting as a new collector of these arms.

What strikes me about the tulwar hilts that we commonly see is that there are a limited number of features which can be mixed and matched, but which somehow must provide some reliable information if only we knew the history of the pieces.
I wonder does anyone know if there has been anyone working on morphometric studies of these perhaps in a similar way to cladistics in taxonomy? Such an analysis would always be reliant on good provenence (and messed up by the kind of battlefield collecting and subequent armory marking mentioned by Jens), but given enough material might be able to create some generic rules. Maybe this kind of study has been applied to other weapon groups already? I would imagine it would work well for Indonesian weapons too since these seem to well understood in terms for form and tribal origins. Just an idle idea from a biologist