Tipu Sultan and the Tiger Head Pommel

Jim McDougall · 29th June 2007, 02:24 PM

Hi Rick,
Thanks again, and I agree with your assessment on that. These were indeed most attractive sabres, and I am wondering if they developed from a basic native form, or developed entirely from the influence of European sabres.

Getting back to the sabre hilt in discussion, since the swords in southern India seem to have favored the use of brass cast hilts, would this be a strong indicator that the hilt was fashioned there, using the distinct British hilt features? intended for a British officer?
Was there any sort of resistance or subversive movement after Tipu's defeat that may have tried to organize against the British occupation? Could this hilt have been fashioned intended for an individual in such a group or faction using the weapons at hand including the motif of Tipu's tiger?

Olikara, with your knowledge of the events of these times, do you think that idea plausible? If so, perhaps the hilt was made with intent for an organized movement, and the plans terminated possibly with counterinsurgence activity or something equivilent. That might explain the absence of the blade (does it appear a blade was originally present in this piece?).

All best regards,
Jim

olikara · 29th June 2007, 05:59 PM

Jim,

What you are suggesting could very well be true as far as an underground movement against against the British is concerned after the fall of Tipu. However this movement was limited to a flareup at Vellore, in another part of S. India, in 1803 where Tipu's immediate family was sent into exile. However, the British were very generous to the family and provided them with hefty pensions.

The Madras Sepoys stationed here mutinied and raised the Flag of Tipu Sultan at the fort, installing his son Fateh Haider as their leader. This mutiny was however crushed by elements of the British 19th Dragoons led by Gen. Rollo Gillespie. The 19th Dragoons had also seen action at Seringapatam in 1799.

However this being said, this revolt or movement pales into insignificance when we compare it with the events of 1857-The Great Mutiny.

That was about all the resistance that sympathizers to Tipu's rule could muster. The British had played their cards well handing out heavy pensions to all in Tipu's extended family and his circle of officers who had survived 1799. They had also restored to the throne the Hindu boy king whose ancestors 3 generations ago had ruled over Mysore. They also had made over large chunks of Mysore territory to the Marathas and the Nizam. Thus they gave no or limited scope to any Indian group to rebel.

I do not see any reason why the resistance should have designed hilts with a hybrid of Tipu and British features. In all probability they would have stuck to Tipu's alone unless of course, they saw that this hybrid variety was in some way technically superior to the traditional one. In any case, there are no written or contemporary records pertaining to any of the rebels of that time using Tipuesque weapons. Maybe they still carried weapons on them that they had used even during Tipu's time.

Rather, could the hilt be the influence of the French, who we know greatly admired the 1796 issue and I have read complained about the savage wounds it inflicted, and cast during Tipu's time itself.

As for the blade, I can see a faint discoloration that looks wedge shaped and seems like part of a blade on one side of the quillon. This portion is also slightly sticky to feel. I can also see something that is soft to touch and feels and looks like resin or gum in the hollow portion where the tang goes. I have marked it for you.

One of the langets is broken and maybe it broke off while someone was trying to pull out the blade from the hilt. It seems to me that someone tried to bend the blade along it's width thus taking it out, maybe as he wanted it to, and one of the langets along with it. What do you think?

Jim McDougall · 30th June 2007, 05:16 AM

Olikara,
Outstanding description of post-Seringpatam southern India, and the situation with the British occupation. Thank you so much for the detail !
It sounds as if the diplomatic efforts of the British favoring Tipu's family and ranking elements of his forces might feasibly have led to a sword, or even a group of such hybrid sabres being fashioned there. While obviously it is unclear how such sabres might have been intended, there does seem to be evidence that the well established Tipu motif, now proudly known by the people there might have been favored in this climate.

Just speculating, and clearly you would have a much better perspective on this possibility with your knowledge and understanding of these events. This truly is a mystery hilt, and becomes more fascinating as we try to discover what it is trying to tell us.

Although your note on the French possibility seems quite plausible (we know that French advisors were there with Haider Ali), the elements of the hilt I have noted (langets, quillon) are distinctly British. The French also had stirrup hilts (also termed D-guard) but these had soundly different form in these. I do know what you are saying on the French thoughts on the M1796, which they termed 'barbaric' in thier use at Waterloo, which was of course some time later.

From your observations on the hilt at the tang aperture, it does seem like a blade was once mounted, and the damage in the missing langet does sound related to the attempts in removing the blade. It was clearly done by someone that was anything but an armourer, and it makes me wonder why it was removed. Could something unfavorable have been on the blade? perhaps an inscription or patriotic slogan, or other? It seems as if the blade was rather brutally removed...but then why wouldnt the entire sword be destroyed?

More questions than answers....but then...the games afoot!!!

All the best,
Jim

ariel · 1st July 2007, 03:12 AM

I do not remember the source (Rawson? Pant?), but it asserted that the Indians valued handles more than blades. A very prosaic explanation of the handle in question is that the blade was damaged beyond repair and discarded. Also (is it my eyesight?) , I cannot see any damage line at the base of the missing langet. Does brass break cleanly? Was the scar polished off?
The presence of a hollow filled with gummy substance is strange to me: the assumption is that that's what held the blade. But Indian cement was black, hard and, when old and damaged, crumbly. The "soft and sticky" stuff cannot be the original cement.

Jim McDougall · 7th July 2007, 05:27 AM

Ariel,
Interesting note concerning the Indian regard for the hilt above the blade. I would very much like to know the reference for this, but I would imagine it would have to do with the monumental symbolism often imbued in the elements and motif of the hilts.
I would suspect that Pant would have been the source, though I do not have access to the book at present. Rawson's focus was on blade typology, so I rather doubt the implication would have been made by him.

All best regards,
Jim

29th June 2007, 05:59 PM	#2
olikara Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: India Posts: 101	Jim, What you are suggesting could very well be true as far as an underground movement against against the British is concerned after the fall of Tipu. However this movement was limited to a flareup at Vellore, in another part of S. India, in 1803 where Tipu's immediate family was sent into exile. However, the British were very generous to the family and provided them with hefty pensions. The Madras Sepoys stationed here mutinied and raised the Flag of Tipu Sultan at the fort, installing his son Fateh Haider as their leader. This mutiny was however crushed by elements of the British 19th Dragoons led by Gen. Rollo Gillespie. The 19th Dragoons had also seen action at Seringapatam in 1799. However this being said, this revolt or movement pales into insignificance when we compare it with the events of 1857-The Great Mutiny. That was about all the resistance that sympathizers to Tipu's rule could muster. The British had played their cards well handing out heavy pensions to all in Tipu's extended family and his circle of officers who had survived 1799. They had also restored to the throne the Hindu boy king whose ancestors 3 generations ago had ruled over Mysore. They also had made over large chunks of Mysore territory to the Marathas and the Nizam. Thus they gave no or limited scope to any Indian group to rebel. I do not see any reason why the resistance should have designed hilts with a hybrid of Tipu and British features. In all probability they would have stuck to Tipu's alone unless of course, they saw that this hybrid variety was in some way technically superior to the traditional one. In any case, there are no written or contemporary records pertaining to any of the rebels of that time using Tipuesque weapons. Maybe they still carried weapons on them that they had used even during Tipu's time. Rather, could the hilt be the influence of the French, who we know greatly admired the 1796 issue and I have read complained about the savage wounds it inflicted, and cast during Tipu's time itself. As for the blade, I can see a faint discoloration that looks wedge shaped and seems like part of a blade on one side of the quillon. This portion is also slightly sticky to feel. I can also see something that is soft to touch and feels and looks like resin or gum in the hollow portion where the tang goes. I have marked it for you. One of the langets is broken and maybe it broke off while someone was trying to pull out the blade from the hilt. It seems to me that someone tried to bend the blade along it's width thus taking it out, maybe as he wanted it to, and one of the langets along with it. What do you think? Attached Images

29th June 2007, 02:24 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Hi Rick, Thanks again, and I agree with your assessment on that. These were indeed most attractive sabres, and I am wondering if they developed from a basic native form, or developed entirely from the influence of European sabres. Getting back to the sabre hilt in discussion, since the swords in southern India seem to have favored the use of brass cast hilts, would this be a strong indicator that the hilt was fashioned there, using the distinct British hilt features? intended for a British officer? Was there any sort of resistance or subversive movement after Tipu's defeat that may have tried to organize against the British occupation? Could this hilt have been fashioned intended for an individual in such a group or faction using the weapons at hand including the motif of Tipu's tiger? Olikara, with your knowledge of the events of these times, do you think that idea plausible? If so, perhaps the hilt was made with intent for an organized movement, and the plans terminated possibly with counterinsurgence activity or something equivilent. That might explain the absence of the blade (does it appear a blade was originally present in this piece?). All best regards, Jim

30th June 2007, 05:16 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Olikara, Outstanding description of post-Seringpatam southern India, and the situation with the British occupation. Thank you so much for the detail ! It sounds as if the diplomatic efforts of the British favoring Tipu's family and ranking elements of his forces might feasibly have led to a sword, or even a group of such hybrid sabres being fashioned there. While obviously it is unclear how such sabres might have been intended, there does seem to be evidence that the well established Tipu motif, now proudly known by the people there might have been favored in this climate. Just speculating, and clearly you would have a much better perspective on this possibility with your knowledge and understanding of these events. This truly is a mystery hilt, and becomes more fascinating as we try to discover what it is trying to tell us. Although your note on the French possibility seems quite plausible (we know that French advisors were there with Haider Ali), the elements of the hilt I have noted (langets, quillon) are distinctly British. The French also had stirrup hilts (also termed D-guard) but these had soundly different form in these. I do know what you are saying on the French thoughts on the M1796, which they termed 'barbaric' in thier use at Waterloo, which was of course some time later. From your observations on the hilt at the tang aperture, it does seem like a blade was once mounted, and the damage in the missing langet does sound related to the attempts in removing the blade. It was clearly done by someone that was anything but an armourer, and it makes me wonder why it was removed. Could something unfavorable have been on the blade? perhaps an inscription or patriotic slogan, or other? It seems as if the blade was rather brutally removed...but then why wouldnt the entire sword be destroyed? More questions than answers....but then...the games afoot!!! All the best, Jim

1st July 2007, 03:12 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I do not remember the source (Rawson? Pant?), but it asserted that the Indians valued handles more than blades. A very prosaic explanation of the handle in question is that the blade was damaged beyond repair and discarded. Also (is it my eyesight?) , I cannot see any damage line at the base of the missing langet. Does brass break cleanly? Was the scar polished off? The presence of a hollow filled with gummy substance is strange to me: the assumption is that that's what held the blade. But Indian cement was black, hard and, when old and damaged, crumbly. The "soft and sticky" stuff cannot be the original cement.

7th July 2007, 05:27 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,196	Ariel, Interesting note concerning the Indian regard for the hilt above the blade. I would very much like to know the reference for this, but I would imagine it would have to do with the monumental symbolism often imbued in the elements and motif of the hilts. I would suspect that Pant would have been the source, though I do not have access to the book at present. Rawson's focus was on blade typology, so I rather doubt the implication would have been made by him. All best regards, Jim