Tulwar with pronounced Yelman.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think the 'tegha' term is less than useful and so vaguely described in most sources it's actual application is questionable. Most of the swords I have seen with the term used have been excessively broad bladed and often regarded as 'executioner' swords. These however are likely in most cases of ceremonial or bearing type use.

Hey Jim,

There seems to be a trend among some collectors of these swords at the moment toward (finally) tackling the division of swords we have always simply called 'Tulwar' into more specific sub-categories.
The reason I posed the question of 'shall we call it a tegha?' is that I have noticed recently he term being more favoured in some circles for broad heavy curved Tulwar, not just the exaggerated examples that we are all used to.
As such, I actually find it rather useful to have as a distinct sub-category and as such I would think that Normans fine heavy curved sword is broad enough to be described as a 'Tegha Tulwar'.
I should add that I don't know the origin or if there is an accepted line where a broad curved blade becomes 'tegha' but there it is.

Besides, anyone who was alive in the UK in the 70s will know that the primary use for those 'giant' Tegha is actually for cutting your Fry's Turkish Delight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAY_o36paQ0

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Gene,
Thanks for your kind comments. It certainly looks like differential hardening, there is a scarf weld halfway up the blade and the activity in the blade is much easier to see in real life so things are looking pretty good. I too love the shape and it feels good so am desperate to have a go on a watermelon but I won't. The etching will have to wait, I'm in an apartment now, will ask my friend if I can use his garage. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Don't think it is right for a Tegha, but will wait on the 'expert India wallah's' for an opinion.

Hi Norman,

It's a beauty, I'd love it myself!
I'd have guessed a date of about 1780 (ish). As has been said already, it has the look of a good 'fighting mans' sword.

Tegha! Hmm, I think it will depend who you ask TBH. A few years ago, I doubt anyone would have even pondered if it should be called a Tegha as the term seemed reserved for those giant ceremonial things.
As I said to Jim, I find it a useful term but will have to leave it for others to decide the validity.

I'll be interested to hear what the specialist collectors of this stuff say and see if there is a cultural divide in terminology.

As I said above, I'd call it a 'Tegha Tulwar' to indicate a broad heavy curved blade somewhat wider than is usual for a Tulwar but on the narrower/straighter range for a Tegha.
I'll have a dig and see if I can illustrate.

Best
Gene

[Atlantia]

Some interesting similar swords>
All sold so not current sale items.

http://antiques-arms.com/sold-indo-p...er-sword-es194

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2852

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=2763

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Gene/Jim,
All the swords illustrated here are sold items gleaned from the www.Oriental-Arms.com site. All have the word Tegha in their description and only one is described as over 2 inches wide and in this case I suspect not by much. Blade lengths vary from 25 inches up to 35 inches. I would not normally or necessarily have associated these blades with the term Tegha but my knowledge is limited. As has been noted the Tulwar that is the subject of this post is most certainly a fighting sword extremely sharp and showing signs of use where one would expect and not the bearing/ceremonial/execution? item that I would normally associate with the description of Tegha. I look forward to further input with interest.
My regards to you both,
Norman.

P.S. The three swords with the D-guards have the longer blades 29-35 inches with only one of the others similar at 30 inches, I'm not aware whether this has any significance or not.

[Atlantia]

I think we've illustrated the difficulty in assertaining where a tulwar becomes a Tegha quite nicely.
I'm getting a deja vu now.... either a glitch in the matrix or I've had this debate before.

So if a tegha is a broad curved sword and a tulwar is also a curved sword... both with the same hilt, both single edged...
Where is the line where a Tulwar can be described as Tegha?


I've already got my ideas, so I'll let others chime in before I throw them out there

But I will say that I've often wondered if Tegha aren't properly these and the term wasn't misapropriated for those exaggerated swords we now associate it with.

Best
Gene

[CharlesS]

I have heard several Sikh martial artists refer to the style above as a "combat tegha", but that may have just been to distinguish it from the huge swords associated with the term "tegha".

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Charles,
I have never heard of this attribution but definitely an angle worth pursuing. I have a nearby neighbour who is Sikh, I'll have a chat he may know more or at least know someone who does. Thanks for your interest.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

LOL!Gene, No doubt a fry cook wielding one of these monsters would be pretty scary

Elgood in "Hindu Arms & Ritual" addresses the 'tegha' conundrum by noting that the Persian word 'tegh' (Steingass, 1973) =sword, glaive,falchion, knife razor, but in India the word tegha is used for the blade of a sword or knife. He notes further that Rawson (1968) brought the heavy, curved blade of 17th century swords into this, and emphasizes that the tegha term has nothing to do with 'headsmans swords'. (p.265).

Turning to Rawson (1968, pp.6,18,19) he describes the tegha as a broad blade with backward curve. He then notes that strictly speaking tegha is a word in Arabic for blade, but 'following Egerton' it is used to describe a tulwar blade with 'exceptionally deep backward curve'.
He notes there are two types of tegha, one Muslim, the other Hindu. In these descriptions they are both again deep backward curve with no mention of heaviness in the blade. The key differences however are in the hilt one with tulwar form the other with Hindu basket hilt.

Here's where it gets complicated....going another step back to Egerton, the original source (1880, p.117). Tegha is described as short broad heavy blade with two grooves (#536 from Codrington collection 30" blade 2" wide).
He then (p.123) describes a sword (nimcha, tegha,goliah) with the handle with tiger stripes from Seringpatam as from Hindustan c.1780 and is a small sword with slight curve.
Completely contrary to the tegha descriptions and the nimcha is even more puzzling.

We go to 'goliah' (p.123) a heavy sword 'slightly bent' and worn by men of rank.

on p.105 the tegha is described as broad curved sword used by Hindu Rangars and 'Mohammedan Rajputs'.

It seems like the string of misinterpretation evolved through the early writers into the work of Rawson, with Pant and later Elgood trying to address the conundrum as well as possible. As can be seen here, the tegha is regarded as a word which has been apparantly misconstrued by early writers attempting to classify sword types with entirely conflicting results.

I'm glad you noted that the use of the term had become a trend among some collectors, interestingly this phenomenon is exactly where we get the phrase 'collectors term' for many of the misnomers often still with us. It seems that it is popular to assign catchy terms or descriptive terms to some sword types with particular features to rather elevate thier attraction, most often in sales descriptions and catalogs. These are of course less than productive in cases like this where identification of sword forms is quite difficult as it is.

Naturally I would also welcome the input and opinions of the specialists, but these are the observations from my own point of view after reviewing the standard references.

All the best,
Jim