Tulwar, help with dating and translation

ariel · 31st March 2016, 12:30 PM

Blade is (safely) 19th century.
But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

GePi · 31st March 2016, 07:44 PM

Thanks for the reply ariel, 19th century was my uneducated guess as well.

The fitting (?) of the resin seemed a bit crude to me too, but I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of hilt construction.

As for the clean part under the languets, I did not mention it, but Matt described the blade as completely black when he received it, and he has done quite a bit of cleaning. As you can see in the attached pictures, on the other side of the sword the rust also covers the area under the languet.

Cheers

Gernot

Jens Nordlunde · 1st April 2016, 01:23 PM

GePi,

Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you.

A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer.

It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu.

Jens Nordlunde · 1st April 2016, 01:28 PM

Here is a link to another inscription.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...on-translation

Ok I go with Ariel, the adhesive is far too much in compare to other tulwars, and more than need to be, so it it is likely that this is a newly marriage.
Although the text says Talpur, the hilt is not Talpur. Other hilt types could have been used in Sindh - but it is not typical.

GePi · 2nd April 2016, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

GePi,

Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you.

A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer.

It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu.

Wow, that's great. Thanks a lot. It seems, I have some reading up to do now.

Cheers

Jim McDougall · 3rd April 2016, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Blade is (safely) 19th century.
But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

Well observed Ariel!! and thank you for the excellent explanations that accompany your deductions, perfectly Holmes!!

Jim McDougall · 3rd April 2016, 06:47 PM

Hi Gernot,
Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar. As Ariel and Jens have observed, this does seem to be a composite, however that is far from being of concern with these weapons.
Actually that is quite a usual circumstance and I would note here that apparently 'gifting' of swords is a pretty standard practice in Talpur regions.

These Baluchi clans were well situated in the Sind territories in which the ruling houses (three), and according to narratives in the 1830s the Talpurs were most fond of fine swords, apparently with their age and fine steel and often embellished in inscriptions in gold. It would seem of course that these instances were with the courts and royal families and officials. While often the inscriptions were short prayers to Hazrut Ali for protection and aid, often also were inscriptions from the Koran or appropriate Persian couplets.

It is further noted that they were at times inscribed with the names of the owners or the name of those who were to receive these swords as gifts.

There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this.

It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century.
As Jens has well noted, though the hilt is not necessarily Talpur or of these regions, it is known that similar forms were sometimes among the often wide variation of hilts, often coming from regions to the south.

ariel · 4th April 2016, 01:04 AM

I recall Fernando's story about his meeting with Rainer Daehnhardt, the famous Portugese collector and author. The latter told Fernando about his meeting with North Indian Raja, who informed him that in the past blades and handles were stored in separate arsenals and re-united when there were rumors of war, and even offered to show him those separate buildings.

We still see tulwars with obviously replaced handles ( not recent replacement but unquestionably old).

Thus, in and of itself, replaced handle is not a disqualifying feature.

What unnerves me with this tulwar is a pretty good set of hints that the handle might have been replaced very recently.

Whether it decreases the value of the renovated tulwar ( taking into account the commonality of the process) I am not sure and would like to learn opinions of Forumites.

Jim McDougall · 4th April 2016, 05:55 AM

From the Hayes (1971) article noted:

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 4th April 2016, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

From the Hayes (1971) article noted:

Salaams Jim, Thank you for the fine article in itself a great research document and as I was looking at Sir Richard Burton I noted Sindh Revisited:
A Journey in the Footsteps of Captain Sir ...1842 -1849

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th April 2016, 02:16 PM

Interesting article Jim, thank you for showing it.

GePi,
The words Sind and Talpur have been mentioned several times, also in connection with your tulwar. However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.

31st March 2016, 07:44 PM	#2
GePi Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Germany Posts: 95	Thanks for the reply ariel, 19th century was my uneducated guess as well. The fitting (?) of the resin seemed a bit crude to me too, but I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of hilt construction. As for the clean part under the languets, I did not mention it, but Matt described the blade as completely black when he received it, and he has done quite a bit of cleaning. As you can see in the attached pictures, on the other side of the sword the rust also covers the area under the languet. Cheers Gernot Attached Images

1st April 2016, 01:23 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	GePi, Welcome to the forum. I think I have some news for you. A good friend of mine who lives in Kanartaka in India has translated the text on the back of the blade. Here is his answer. It says: Malik Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Talpur which translates as "The Owner Sarkar Ahmad Yaar Khan Tal Pur" So the blade is from Talpur! The writing is in Urdu. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 1st April 2016 at 09:44 PM.

1st April 2016, 01:28 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Here is a link to another inscription. http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...on-translation Ok I go with Ariel, the adhesive is far too much in compare to other tulwars, and more than need to be, so it it is likely that this is a newly marriage. Although the text says Talpur, the hilt is not Talpur. Other hilt types could have been used in Sindh - but it is not typical. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 1st April 2016 at 09:50 PM.

4th April 2016, 05:55 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	From the Hayes (1971) article noted: Attached Images

31st March 2016, 12:30 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Blade is (safely) 19th century. But my antennae are twitching when I look at the adhesive : too much of it, too clumsy, too new-looking. Tough to be certain without personal inspection, but it looks like loose handle being fixed or a totally new handle was attached to the blade pretty recently. The latter looks more likely: the blade is very clean under the langet, although it still has rust close to the edge and spine. My guess it is a composite.

3rd April 2016, 06:47 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Gernot, Welcome to our forum and thank you bringing in such an interesting example of tulwar. As Ariel and Jens have observed, this does seem to be a composite, however that is far from being of concern with these weapons. Actually that is quite a usual circumstance and I would note here that apparently 'gifting' of swords is a pretty standard practice in Talpur regions. These Baluchi clans were well situated in the Sind territories in which the ruling houses (three), and according to narratives in the 1830s the Talpurs were most fond of fine swords, apparently with their age and fine steel and often embellished in inscriptions in gold. It would seem of course that these instances were with the courts and royal families and officials. While often the inscriptions were short prayers to Hazrut Ali for protection and aid, often also were inscriptions from the Koran or appropriate Persian couplets. It is further noted that they were at times inscribed with the names of the owners or the name of those who were to receive these swords as gifts. There is an outstanding article "Swords of the Shazadas and Talpurs" by Peter Hayes ("Connoisseur" magazine Nov. 1971, Vol. 178, #717, p.177) which describes much of this. It would seem this blade, which has a most interesting deeper curvature than most tulwars and heavier tip, almost approximating a yelman, does seem to be earlier in the century. As Jens has well noted, though the hilt is not necessarily Talpur or of these regions, it is known that similar forms were sometimes among the often wide variation of hilts, often coming from regions to the south.

4th April 2016, 01:04 AM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I recall Fernando's story about his meeting with Rainer Daehnhardt, the famous Portugese collector and author. The latter told Fernando about his meeting with North Indian Raja, who informed him that in the past blades and handles were stored in separate arsenals and re-united when there were rumors of war, and even offered to show him those separate buildings. We still see tulwars with obviously replaced handles ( not recent replacement but unquestionably old). Thus, in and of itself, replaced handle is not a disqualifying feature. What unnerves me with this tulwar is a pretty good set of hints that the handle might have been replaced very recently. Whether it decreases the value of the renovated tulwar ( taking into account the commonality of the process) I am not sure and would like to learn opinions of Forumites.

4th April 2016, 02:16 PM	#11
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Interesting article Jim, thank you for showing it. GePi, The words Sind and Talpur have been mentioned several times, also in connection with your tulwar. However, your hilt is not a typical Talpur hilt, for such a hilt you will have to look at Jim's article at the last picture. The tulwar at the botton has a typical Talpur hilt.