Enfield made Afghani Pulwar

[Jim McDougall]

While without notes or references at moment, the 1853 as noted was somewhat in line with the later examples previously noted of regulation British blades.
The font and position of the ENFIELD stamp seems in line as well with correct British stamping. While not in character without year or government stamps, it does not seem the blade is not authentically British.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

While not in character without year or government stamps, it does not seem the blade is not authentically British.

Parsing the sentence I think you believe it is British.

[Jim McDougall]

In retrospect, the sentence looks awkward
I think your thoughts are well reasoned Marcus, and there was considerable traffic of materials, including blades, outside government sanctioned means. Many blades etc for example are supposed to be marked ISD (India Stores Dept) but many are not.
I think this is a British blade .

[Will M]

Yes an Enfield blade from a 1821 pattern British light or heavy cavalry sword. latest dates I've seen on these is 1848. The Enfield stampings are not perfect.
This photo the "Enfield" has been dinged. Photo of a British 1821p HC sword.
Possibly be a 1853p blade with unstopped fuller. Most 1853p swords were made by Mole, Reeves and early ones made in Germany and inspected at Liege with a crown/L/# on the ricasso. Enfield could not make enough swords at the time with the Crimean War in full gear.

[Jim McDougall]

As far as I have known, the M1821 light and heavy cavalry trooper blades have a block ricasso and hollow ground blade, as seen in the picture. The blade OP in the paluoar seems to have the elliptical fuller which terminates at the ricasso area.
This elliptical fuller I believe is typical of M1853 blades and some of the later blades on British cavalry swords.
However, the M1853 cavalry sabre was the first to have the full tang (patented by Charles Reeves but Wilkinson also produced some under license from him). What was different about this tang was that rather than being inserted into grip, the grips were individual pieces sandwiched onto the tang.

This type of blade tang does not seem in accord with the hilt on this paluoar leaving a bit of a puzzle. The first of these type hilts by Wilkinson (1854) with Reeves also producing.
I have seen M1821 blades by Reeves which must have been about 1840s so the 1848 date seems possible for these as noted. The Reeves blades I saw were of the 'old' type block ricasso.

In a reference (Journal of Royal United Service Museum, Vol.42 #2, 1898, p.1148) it is noted that Enfield did not make swords around the time of Crimean War but that did begin producing some then. There were a good number from Germany (most I have seen were Kirschbaum) but Mole (also working with Wilkinson) produced some.
The problem with sword production in these times was mostly the stringent protocols on testing blades per regulations.

So my question is, why does this blade of apparent 1853 type have the old form tang (as it appears) and why the Enfield stamp? Could this be one of the prototypes of the M1853 produced at Enfield prior to the production using the new tang?
Then, why is this unusual blade on a paluoar?
The British were heavily involved in Afghanistan after the 1879 war in trying to maintain their strategic presence there, and were of course not only subsidizing the development of industry and military but certainly bringing in British materials and quite likely often covertly. When they began the creation of the factory in Kabul the idea was to produce British weapons with Afghan workers.
In discussions here over the years and with the research and paper done by Mahratt, some of the weapons created there are addressed. It does not seem implausible that an ENFIELD stamp might have been in use in Kabul in these endeavors, and that an imitation of the M1853 blade with old style tang might have resulted.

Perhaps this might explain this anomaly, and I hope my suggestion makes sense.

[Marcus]

This is going to be an interesting and challenging piece to write up.

[kronckew]

will's sword's spine tarted up a bit so you can read it a bit better...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Marcus

This is going to be an interesting and challenging piece to write up.

Indeed it will.
The history of British regulation swords is tumultuous enough, without the complexity of Afghanistan and 'The Great Game' (highly recommend Peter Hopkirks book by this title) thrown into the mix.
That is what makes this paluoar so unique, with a blade in transitional circumstances either a prototype from Enfield just as the Crimean War loomed or a blade copied in British subsidized Afghan factory in Kabul.
As I mentioned, the font on this stamp seems correct for markings on blades of 19th c . as is placement. It may be a worn stamp supplied to these projects accounting for the degraded letter at the end.

Naturally these are just speculations on my part, but hopefully they might provide some ideas for further research toward a more accurately detailed account of this sword.

The use of British blades in native hilts is far from unusual, and the favor of the British light cavalry M1796 became legion in India. As a result of these blades being used remarkably successfully in native tulwars, the 'hatchet point' type blades remained in production for Indian cavalry sabres through the 19th century (long after superceded by the M1821 series) In fact even the stirrup hilt also remained in use as long.

[Marcus]

On page 142, reading more between flights in Paris airport.