Yes...another Tulwar but with strange marking?

Jens Nordlunde · 5th July 2007, 02:35 PM

Katana,

First you should know that the Indian numerals can look quite differently, according to if it is Sanskrit, Bengali, Kutch, Gujarati or maybe Devavnagri. Secondly you must keep in mind, that the numerals written were sometimes a mixture of more than one dialect, and last remember, that my knowledge on this subject is very limited. I don’t think the first signs are letters, but I would prefer not to start guessing. The number could be 2880, in which case it is likely to be a number, but it could also be 1880 if you use numerals from another dialect. This could be a number, but with some luck, it could also be a year. If it is a year it is likely to be SV 1880 = 1823/1824 AD. This is of course pure guessing, and we have far too many if’s and good luck to have come any closer to the answer.

Jim, I don’t know if it is from Bikaner. Maybe it is, but it does not have the typical Bikaner marking.

5th July 2007, 02:35 PM	#11
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Katana, First you should know that the Indian numerals can look quite differently, according to if it is Sanskrit, Bengali, Kutch, Gujarati or maybe Devavnagri. Secondly you must keep in mind, that the numerals written were sometimes a mixture of more than one dialect, and last remember, that my knowledge on this subject is very limited. I don’t think the first signs are letters, but I would prefer not to start guessing. The number could be 2880, in which case it is likely to be a number, but it could also be 1880 if you use numerals from another dialect. This could be a number, but with some luck, it could also be a year. If it is a year it is likely to be SV 1880 = 1823/1824 AD. This is of course pure guessing, and we have far too many if’s and good luck to have come any closer to the answer. Jim, I don’t know if it is from Bikaner. Maybe it is, but it does not have the typical Bikaner marking.