Indian? sword for ID

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	#1
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

22nd December 2006, 07:03 PM	#2
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	#3
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.