Indian Tulwar

[mrcjgscott]

Many thanks for taking the time to post this up Jim, very interesting stuff!

I can see exactly what you are saying about the vase/urn influence to the grip. Great to think it might be slightly earlier than I thought, that is always good to hear.

With regard to the koftgari decoration, what sort of "rank" of person would have owned a tulwar such as this? I have seen magnificent pieces in places like the Wallace Collection, but I always like to think about who the original owner might have been.

My field of expertise is more with European, especially British arms, but I do have a good Indian sword made for a European, by way of thanks I shall post it here once I return home next week.

Kind regards,

Chris

[sirupate]

Lovely Tulwar Scott, great info as usual from Jim McDougall, it will be interesting to see what Jens comes up with

[Jens Nordlunde]

In Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition, vol. II, plate LVII, Hendley shows four hilts.

From left to right he writes. “Damascened in gold. 1 and 5, made at Sirohi; 2, made at Gujrat, Kabul fashion; 3, made at Gujrat; 4, Indian hilt made at Gujrat.”

This is, of course, interesting as the book was published in 1883. These hilts were likely to have been new at the time, as the craftsmen wanted to show their ability, and when older things are shown at the exhibition Hendley writes so.

It is a pity that he does not explain what makes no 2 of Kabul fashion. But had he thought that we about 230 years later studied his books, not knowing what he meant, I feel sure he would have explained it.

Hendley may have been right, but take it with a grain of salt, as he may have been told from where the hilts came, and written what he had been told – what if what he was told was not correct? So what do we believe in? I would believe in Hendley, until I can prove he was wrong.

This means that whatever you read, always put a smaller or bigger question mark behind the answer.

In this case Hendley has written the text himself, and not copied it from other books, this is why I think the we can put a small question mark behind his text.

I am at the moment, on and off, researching another hilt type, which, with a bit of luck, will show to be in the 'family'.

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In Memorials of the Jeypore Exhibition, vol. II, plate LVII, Hendley shows four hilts.

From left to right he writes. “Damascened in gold. 1 and 5, made at Sirohi; 2, made at Gujrat, Kabul fashion; 3, made at Gujrat; 4, Indian hilt made at Gujrat.”

This is, of course, interesting as the book was published in 1883. These hilts were likely to have been new at the time, as the craftsmen wanted to show their ability, and when older things are shown at the exhibition Hendley writes so.

It is a pity that he does not explain what makes no 2 of Kabul fashion. But had he thought that we about 230 years later studied his books, not knowing what he meant, I feel sure he would have explained it.

Hendley may have been right, but take it with a grain of salt, as he may have been told from where the hilts came, and written what he had been told – what if what he was told was not correct? So what do we believe in? I would believe in Hendley, until I can prove he was wrong.

This means that whatever you read, always put a smaller or bigger question mark behind the answer.

In this case Hendley has written the text himself, and not copied it from other books, this is why I think the we can put a small question mark behind his text.

I am at the moment, on and off, researching another hilt type, which, with a bit of luck, will show to be in the 'family'.

Dear Jens,

Many thanks indeed for taking the time to share this information, very interesting indeed, even to a layman like myself.

I understand your caveat about taking what is written with a grain of salt, something I try to do with every source I read. It is always best to remain open minded, even when the conclusion seems foregone!

Having handled several ordinary tulwars, I was struck by how lively and purposeful this one felt in the hand, even the grip accommodates my hand comfortably (usually my fingers feel squashed within the guard!)

I wish you every success with your ongoing research.

Kind regards,

Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Chris, you are most welcome, and it is extremely rewarding to see someone approaching the often daunting field of Indian arms with such a genuinely investigative approach.
I am as always glad to see Jens add the outstanding perspective he constantly shares here on these fascinating swords.

As he well notes, many sources on these arms are written many years ago, and by those who were amidst the sphere of the British Raj. In this vast colonial network, there was considerable diffusion of weapon forms and decorative styles. It seems these writers did pretty well keeping in mind that the constant exhibitions, durbars and various key events brought together all of these elements quite typically outside their regular context.

As Jens notes, the grain of salt caveat is of course a standard with this in mind, but these sources do present a worthwhile benchmark to look for consistancies with which to establish more defined classifications.

As you note, the size of the grip is often noticeably small for our western hands, a topic often discussed on these pages over the years.
It has often been held that the so called 'Indian ricasso' I mentioned was specifically to allow for the forefinger to extend over the quillon and avoid being cut by the blade near the hilt.
Many disagree, however it is pointed out that tulwar combat seldom had sword to sword contact, parrying was with the dhal (shield).

As for the koftgari decoration, it would be difficult to assess the status or station of one having such quality swords, but broadly they could be seen as courtly weapons as these retinues were considerable throughout so many regions in India.

[sirupate]

A good vid by Matt Easton on the way to use the Tulwar hilt
About the Tulwar Handle

[spiral]

I love it when my mornings prophecy's are proved true in the evening!

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Chris, you are most welcome, and it is extremely rewarding to see someone approaching the often daunting field of Indian arms with such a genuinely investigative approach.
I am as always glad to see Jens add the outstanding perspective he constantly shares here on these fascinating swords.

As he well notes, many sources on these arms are written many years ago, and by those who were amidst the sphere of the British Raj. In this vast colonial network, there was considerable diffusion of weapon forms and decorative styles. It seems these writers did pretty well keeping in mind that the constant exhibitions, durbars and various key events brought together all of these elements quite typically outside their regular context.

As Jens notes, the grain of salt caveat is of course a standard with this in mind, but these sources do present a worthwhile benchmark to look for consistancies with which to establish more defined classifications.

As you note, the size of the grip is often noticeably small for our western hands, a topic often discussed on these pages over the years.
It has often been held that the so called 'Indian ricasso' I mentioned was specifically to allow for the forefinger to extend over the quillon and avoid being cut by the blade near the hilt.
Many disagree, however it is pointed out that tulwar combat seldom had sword to sword contact, parrying was with the dhal (shield).

As for the koftgari decoration, it would be difficult to assess the status or station of one having such quality swords, but broadly they could be seen as courtly weapons as these retinues were considerable throughout so many regions in India.

Hello Jim,

Thank you for taking the time to further elaborate on the Indian ricasso, that is not a theory I am familiar with, but it certainly seems logical, given the hilt construction. Something I need to look into more closely I think.

It is also easy for us western sword collectors (or perhaps it is just me!) to forget the important role that dhal played in combat. As a kukri enthusiast, I must remember this!

I like the association of a courtly weapon, I can see it glinting in the sun at a Durbar in its former glory. Unlike a European court sword of the same period, I would be quite happy to trust my life to this tulwar!

Is there a reading list on the forum where one might learn more about such weapons, including the texts that Jens has mentioned above?

My thanks again Jim,

Kind regards,

Chris