Tulwar makers/armory mark help?

[olikara]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Timv,
The deeply stamped cartouche is interesting, and since it is found under the hilt, is probably a makers stamp that may have numeric figures as these often had to do with contracts of blades produced I believe.

You are right, Jim. The numeric in the cartouche reads 141

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much for responding Olikara! I was hoping you would, and I had neglected to suggest looking at resources on the coins of India to help in identifying the characters in the cartouche. As you had pointed out earlier, this resource is often extremely helpful in examining markings and stamps on weapons.

All best regards,
Jim

[timv]

Thanks so much to both Jim and Olikara for your help in this! It brings me closer to an understanding of this (as you put it Jim) warrior weapon.

I know that there have been posts here in the past giving suggestions for traditional goop for reattaching the hilts of these swords but does anyone have thoughts on a modern material that I can use to do this without making it a permanent "repair"? I wouldn't like to use an epoxy or something that would be an irreversable addition. Any further help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for all the help so far!

[rand]

Used to have a reference for the material used to hold tulwar hilts, cannot find it at moment.

But the material used was most likely mastic, a resin material grown on one of the Greek islands, also used for making chewing gum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastic

rand

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi timv, Olikara must have been standing on his head reading the number, as it should be read from the back of the blade and not from the edge. The number is, however, so clear that there can be no doubt ‘141’ it is, but which dialect, could it be Kutch? What do you think Olikara? The ‘1’ is from my ‘translation’ sheet from Kutch, which not necessarily means much.

If the number was hidden under the langet it can’t have been an armoury mark, like Jim says, as an armoury mark was supposed to have been seen easily, so it must have been something else – a sword smith’s mark perhaps, but is a number not a strange mark for a sword smith? So let me come with a wild guess, the numbers could either have meant something else, or the smith could have been working at a very big place with many smiths, and his number was 141.

Do you know where it was found?

I think Rand's suggestion is a good one, I would never use epoxy.

Here it how it should look.

[olikara]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The number is, however, so clear that there can be no doubt ‘141’ it is, but which dialect, could it be Kutch? What do you think Olikara? The ‘1’ is from my ‘translation’ sheet from Kutch, which not necessarily means much.

Jens,
I can only say that the dialect is from a (North) Indian Hindu state. It could be Rajput, Kutchi, Marwari or any of the myriad of dialects in the Indian Northern and Central provinces. Perhaps, if we know where the sword was found, we can pin the location.

And as you suggested, the '1' is not written in the way that the Hindu '1' should be written. But I assume that it is only a case of artistic license on the part of the die (punch) maker.

Olikara

[rand]

Does the dot after the "141" have any signifigance?

rand