View Single Post
Old 2nd September 2009, 05:29 PM   #7
Jens Nordlunde
Member
 
Jens Nordlunde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
Default

Greg, this is not an easy way you have started to walk – but it most surely is an interesting one. Taking an interest in the early history of India, as well as different Indian arts and architecture will help. So when you have read a stack of books on these and other subject on Indian arts, and decided which authors you believe in, as some use texts from others, but rewrite it, so it can be difficult to see from where it is; then you are on the right road – and start to regard all information’s with scepticism from the start, till you are satisfied yourself. To have a theory is always good, but one must remember that it is a theory till proven.

I have made some research on the shown diamond shaped tulwar hilt, you can see the result below, before you do, you should notice that these hilts come in slim, medium and extra large, like most of the other hilts.

This tulwar comes from Udaipur, but it does not prove that this hilt type origins from there like Pant claimed - but never proved. However, he could be right, but as he is dead now, it is up to the rest of us to prove it – if it can be proven.

This tulwar has a hilt of diamond shape, with relatively long, slender quillons, flat at the end. The langets are long, slim and cut off straight at the end. The disc pommel is relatively large, placed in a right angle to the grip, with a sun with rays at the top, and the flower in the middle ends in a short spike. The decoration, is very easily recognised, is in a floral motif in gold koft gari.

The blade is pattern welded in an almost step pattern. It has two short fullers at each side of the langets, ending with three dots. Two long fullers along the blade, one ending at the false edge, and the other further down, both start and end with three dots.

Total length 88.5 cm. Length of blade 76 cm. Ricasso 6 cm. Hilt 18.5 cm. Disc 7.4 cm. Width of quillons 10.4 cm. Length of langet 6.9 cm.

Inscriptions:

On the back of the blade, near the hilt an inscription in Arabic letters reading ‘Shaika Nanhu Musavi’. The inscription is in Urdu and translates to ‘The Honourable young Musavi’. Musavi is a common Muslim name, and Musa is derived from the Jewish name Moses.

Under the disc, around the edge of the grip is another inscription in Devnagiri, reading ‘Shri JodhSinghji S(a)l B (‘B’ stands for Bahadur, a prominent religious deity in Gujarat/Kutch.) 1927’. The year 1927 is given in the Vikrama Samvat era and corresponds to 1870-71 AD, during the rule of Rao Jodh Singh II of. Salumbar. And so the translation potentially reads ‘Shri (a title given to royalty) Jodh Singh Bahadur Salumbar 1927’.

The second part of the text says, ‘Maharaja Dhi Raj Shri Maha Rao (N) Ji Shri’, and translates roughly as ‘His Royal Magnificent Highness’.

Salumbar (Thikana) was a small kingdom in Udaipur, which is among one of the most prestigious states of the Hindu state of Mewar. As Salumbar was part of Udaipur/Mewar they paid tribute to the ruler of Udaipur.

The main part of the Mewar Rajput rulers belonged to the Sisodiya clan, of which there are several branches and sub branches.

The Guhilots ruled Mewar from the 8th to the 14th century, and the Sisodias ruled from the 14th and they are still Maharajas of Mewar.

When the rule by the Sisodias of the Chundawat clan started in Salumbar is not clear, but the first ruler was Rawat Chunda Singh, who was succeeded by his son Rawat Kandhal Singh, who again was succeeded by his son Rawat Ratan Singh I, who died in 1527, so their rule goes back for centuries. The present Rawat of the same old family, the twenty-eight, Rawat Devrath Singh, Succeeded his father who died in 2002.

In 1901 the population is said to have been 31’000, so it was a relatively small state.

Rao Jodh Singh II was the 24th ruler, borne 1833 in Bambora, ruling from 1863 to 1901(?) He adopted Kunwar (A title given to the son of a ruler during his father’s lifetime.) Tej Singh, the third son of Rao Bhupal Singh of Bhadesar. Tej Singh died young, and so the fourth son of Rao Bupal Singh was adopted, but did not succeed there, as Onar Singh in 1901 was the next Rao of Salumbar.

The families of Salumbar and Bhadesar were related, as the first ruler of Bhadesar, Rao Bhairav Singh was the second son of Rao Bhim Singh, the 19th ruler of Salumbar.

BTW please keep you pictures together. I suppose that your pictures 1, 2 and 5 are of the same object, and that pictures 3 and forur are from the same hilt.
Attached Images
    

Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 2nd September 2009 at 06:11 PM.
Jens Nordlunde is offline   Reply With Quote