![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 3,191
|
Quote:
Battara I think that what you may be seeing is just some left over oxidation pattern I tried to fix the picture up but did not see anything. Lew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Quote:
fernando |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Hi Jim,
Much obliged for your comprehensive input. It will take me some time to absorve it. I hope something further comes up on the decoration subject. Eventually this motiv is only on one side of the blade, the back side is plain. Hi Jens, I am glad you find this a nice piece. Here are pictures taken with different light and background. As i said above, the decoration is only on one side of the blade. Does this mean something unusual ? It is a pitty you find the age of this tulwar as recent as 1850-1900 . Jim and Ariel's opinnion was more favourable ... i am a fan of antiquity in weapons. But against facts there are no arguments, as we say over here.Further coments will be more than welcome. One thing i would love to reach a general consensus is whether this is a ceremonial or an action ( infantry )sword Thanks all again fernando Last edited by fernando; 12th September 2007 at 12:11 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
Usually, though not always, a blade decorated on one side only.... is usually 'ceremonial'. It is a nice Tulwar, I like it , congrats Fernando
![]() I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Thanks a lot David, for both congrats and info.
I'll bear that in mind. I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they This one is for the experts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,670
|
You are welcome Fernando, it is an interesting tulwar and it is enjoyable to discuss its possibilities. I am really glad to see Jens come in on this. He's handled more tulwars than anyone I know, so his suggestion of more into the 19th century is probably correct. It is very difficult to really estimate age on these and it is unclear whether slight variations suggest different period or regional preference and I am not aware of the chronological progression of hilt elements. I was not aware that the quillons angled downward suggested an earlier example but it is an interesting concept.
As David has noted, the motif on the face of the blade does seem to suggest a ceremonial or parade weapon. It may have been carried blade upright, face forward with the motif displayed. If this was the case, it would be interesting to know if there was particular symbolism in the motif, what sort of flower would that be?....Jens what do you think? Best regards, Jim |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
Fernando, don’t be disappointed about my dating. Dating Indian weapons is at the best a vague guess in most cases, and even blades with a date inscribed can’t always be trusted, so Ariel and Jim’s guess may be right due to the decoration and the wear. You don’t see this decoration on a blade often, so a bit of research should give you a good idea of from where in India it comes. It is interesting that the blade is only decorated on one side, but it happens now and again, probably due to cost saving I would think.
Katana, 'heavely engraved' blades can be made of wootz, but this is seldom, besides, 'if' the blade is 'only' engraved on one side due to cost saving, the blade would not be made of wootz, as this would have made the blade more expensive, but there can also have been other reasons for it being decorated on one side. Jim/Katana, this could be a cermonial tulwar, although I am not convinsed. Tell me another thing, could/would some of the cermonial weapons have been used in war? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|