Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 29th January 2021, 05:14 PM

VERY well said Richard!
Trying to itemize swords of India, especially the tulwar, is pretty much futile and really does require a great deal of research and knowledge of India's history to attempt specific classifications with any degree of viability.

As pointed out, there were many variations and options which existed contemporarily and also as well noted, swords were almost consistently remounted, as common with many ethnographic swords.
The replacement of scabbards is pretty much standard, as the materials were generally less durable of course and did not last through the longer working lives of the blades.

Rajasthan is sort of like the 'Texas' of India, it is huge, and the many centers of sword making were in these regions of India. Here were typically the shops producing hilts as well, and these often went to other locations, where they were decorated in the locally favored fashion, for example to Lucknow where enameling was prevalent etc.

With this tulwar, it is of course safe to say it is 19th century as this is the time when these examples became popularly known through the British Raj.
There was still much activity in hilt making, as well as blade making along with importing of them.
The blade here appears to be Indian, most likely from Rajasthan, and I would say safely mid to latter 19th c. It is not of the styling of European saber blades earlier nor of contemporary 19th c. European forms, though it reflects influence.

The hilt is of a number of Rajasthani types but I think these open hilt with close in quillons were typically Mughal (though here I am probably generalizing). The reason I say that is that the Rajput and Sikh examples seem to have more substantial elements (knuckleguard, larger pommel dish) and less 'decoration' (again generalizng).

Obviously those comments are subject to the countless exceptions which exist in tulwars, which were diversely used over much of India for centuries.

PS
Gonzo I am inclined to agree with your excellent observation on the hilt, I think it is older than the blade (or at least not original to it) and seems to be more of the type I have usually regarded as 'court' or official type which typically have less substantial blades.

29th January 2021, 05:14 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,756	VERY well said Richard! Trying to itemize swords of India, especially the tulwar, is pretty much futile and really does require a great deal of research and knowledge of India's history to attempt specific classifications with any degree of viability. As pointed out, there were many variations and options which existed contemporarily and also as well noted, swords were almost consistently remounted, as common with many ethnographic swords. The replacement of scabbards is pretty much standard, as the materials were generally less durable of course and did not last through the longer working lives of the blades. Rajasthan is sort of like the 'Texas' of India, it is huge, and the many centers of sword making were in these regions of India. Here were typically the shops producing hilts as well, and these often went to other locations, where they were decorated in the locally favored fashion, for example to Lucknow where enameling was prevalent etc. With this tulwar, it is of course safe to say it is 19th century as this is the time when these examples became popularly known through the British Raj. There was still much activity in hilt making, as well as blade making along with importing of them. The blade here appears to be Indian, most likely from Rajasthan, and I would say safely mid to latter 19th c. It is not of the styling of European saber blades earlier nor of contemporary 19th c. European forms, though it reflects influence. The hilt is of a number of Rajasthani types but I think these open hilt with close in quillons were typically Mughal (though here I am probably generalizing). The reason I say that is that the Rajput and Sikh examples seem to have more substantial elements (knuckleguard, larger pommel dish) and less 'decoration' (again generalizng). Obviously those comments are subject to the countless exceptions which exist in tulwars, which were diversely used over much of India for centuries. PS Gonzo I am inclined to agree with your excellent observation on the hilt, I think it is older than the blade (or at least not original to it) and seems to be more of the type I have usually regarded as 'court' or official type which typically have less substantial blades.