Tulwar handles on e-bay

Jens Nordlunde · 16th January 2017, 04:35 PM

Marius,
When you write about the weapons dumped at sea, I think you are thinking of when the Muhamedan Coorgs chopped the English magistrate down on his veranda in 1884. At that time more than 15'000 weapons were collected and dropped at sea - only few were allowed to enter into museums.
Otherwise the English mostly melted the blades down.
I dont know how comon it was, then, to keep loose hilts and loose blades, but in Memories of the Jaypore Exhibition 1884 Hendley shows five or six loose hilts, so maybe they did this to a certain extend.

Richard,
I too dont understand why they dont remove the blade, why they have to break it? Maybe it has something to do with the weapon laws in India, or that it is easier to send - as the weapon is shorter?
I dont really know, but it is a very strange thing to do, as they would get more money if the blade was intact.

Does anyone know how the white arms law in India is?

mariusgmioc · 16th January 2017, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Marius,

Does anyone know how the white arms law in India is?

Hello Jens,

I have been told that any sharp blade longer than 9" is considered a weapon and strictly prohibited in India. That's why all the newly made replicas have a dull edge and that's one reason why I couldn't find a single genuine sword at any of the antique dealers I have seen.

However, this is anecdotal and I didn't check the Indian legislation myself.

As with regards to the swords dumped in the sea, I don't know anything more than a vague memory about reading somewhere here on the forum about such an event, and it might be the one you mentioned.

Jim McDougall · 16th January 2017, 06:22 PM

It seems not too long ago, it may have been posted here, there were a number of historically valuable very old Indian swords, including khandas and patissa forms. These had blades cut off about 1/3 down from hilt. They were well patinated, and sold in an 'as is' lot in an auction.
While no provenance was noted, it would seem these may have been in a small arsenal or store of weapons, and as they were important traditional arms, their retention may have been allowed if they were neutralized.

This is contrary to the outcome in the well known larger armouries where select weapons were held aside but the bulk were destroyed as scrap .

The items being dumped at sea were described in Robert Elgood's book on Islamic firearms but reference not handy at the moment.

kahnjar1 · 16th January 2017, 07:10 PM

One other possibility, which has not been mentioned above if I read correctly, is that these (or at least some) are modern made and aged copies. I have an Indian friend who has said to me that I should NOT buy anything from India described as "old" or "antique" unless I have watertight provenance. His comment was that India is the new China in terms of copies. This of course is not necessarily an all encompassing statement, but simply that extreme care should be taken when buying "old" items.
It should also perhaps be noted that there are, from time to time, many "old" and "antique" powder flasks being advertised from India, "made by" such well known makers as Hawksley etc.

Stu

ariel · 16th January 2017, 07:54 PM

OK, guys, additional information.
I contacted Fernando and he was unbelievably helpful.
He sent me an English translation of p.189 from Rainer Daehnhardts book "Men, Swords and Tomatos" ( the latter is a Portugese slang for "Balls") as well as his old post here about his conversation with RD post book reading.
Here they are:

Daehnhardt's book:
''' The main charateristic of this arm is little known, but rather interesting. Apart from individual arms that were manufactured for high rank personalities, more simple tulwars were also produced, in large quantities, for the Sovereigns arsenals. Invasions, popular insubordinations and palatial revolutions were very frequent. Few were the Sovereigns that dyed of natural causes. The state of war between ones and others was a frequente situation. In this atmosphere it became obvious that the possession and access to the arsenals were a preocupation of the greatest priority. A system was invented that impeached the possibility of using an Indian arsenal from one moment to the other. The handles of tulwars were built in metal ( usually iron ), joining guard, grip and pommel in one only piece, which doesn't happen in the majority of white weapons of other origins, where all these components were separated one from eachother. As tulwars handles were one only part, it became easy to join all these in one arsenal ( we are talking, in round numbers, in the order of the one hundred thousand handles ), and build a tower where these could be well kept with "seven keys" ( my commas , for a Portuguese figure of speech ). In another tower, distant from the first one, the respective blades were kept. When a sovereign decided to invade a neighbour country or prepare himself to defend his own, such event would be known within months of antecipation, which allowed for the mounting of the blades in their handles. Such blades had a short tang, which was neither peened, screwed, or stuck by a pin. To couple the blade with the grip, the late was turned upsidown, pouring in into his hollow part heated pitch, therefore liquid, as the blade was inserted. Once the pith cooled down, the blade would be fixed enough for battle, during years. In case it started to oscilate, the fixing system could allways be repeated. A strategic Sovereign would know how much time he needed to mount his army weapons and, taking precaution, had his arsenals ready in due time for the distribution of tulwars. In case of a mutiny or a palatial revolution, there was no time to mount the tulwars, in a manner that the arsenals were relatively protected from improper utilization.'''

Fernando's follow-up message:
Hi Ariel,

I was precisely answering your first email...my email server got stuck.

Yes, this was a two part story.
First, and as you already spotted, the text copied from page 189 of the said book Men Swords and Tomatos (read 'balls').
And as this has generated some skepticism, namely from the side of one such 'Spiral', i have visited Daehnhardt and raised the problem. His answered is contained in a post i submitted in a later thread, as follows:

... I have visited Rainer Daehnhardt shops in Lisbon, and i had in mind to ask him to coment on some parts of his book that have been considered discusseable.
Concerning the tulwars being stored in separate places, he stil assumes what he has written in the book. But i have learnt that he was referring to a specific case, and not to generality. In one of his (three?) visits to India, around 1970, he met a certain Maharaja in the north whom, at time of visiting his arsenal, asked him whether he wanted to see the blades first, or the hilts. For the case, they were kept in two towers, located about one kilometer away from each other.
The reason explained for such attitude was the one we already know.
He said ( i didn't ask him ) that the Maharaja's name was complex and dificult to memorize ... "Bija" something or the like...

Best wishes
Fernando

Thanks a lot, Fernando!!!!!

fernando · 16th January 2017, 08:02 PM

Jens Nordlunde · 17th January 2017, 04:43 PM

Fernando/Ariel, very well done, and thank you very much for the translation.
It seems to me, that keeping the hilts and the blades apart, was a question, which Rainer Daehnhardt should have been digging a bit more into - a pity he didn't.
This 'habit' of keeping hilts and blade seperat, could be due to, how much the Maharaja trusted his employees, and the people he was ruling over.
I feel sure, that had it been general, people like Egerton, Hendley, Kipling and others, living there and commenting on armouries would have mentioned it, as the habit, as far as I know, is very far form the European way to do it - and so, such a habit, must have been very strange to them.

16th January 2017, 04:35 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Marius, When you write about the weapons dumped at sea, I think you are thinking of when the Muhamedan Coorgs chopped the English magistrate down on his veranda in 1884. At that time more than 15'000 weapons were collected and dropped at sea - only few were allowed to enter into museums. Otherwise the English mostly melted the blades down. I dont know how comon it was, then, to keep loose hilts and loose blades, but in Memories of the Jaypore Exhibition 1884 Hendley shows five or six loose hilts, so maybe they did this to a certain extend. Richard, I too dont understand why they dont remove the blade, why they have to break it? Maybe it has something to do with the weapon laws in India, or that it is easier to send - as the weapon is shorter? I dont really know, but it is a very strange thing to do, as they would get more money if the blade was intact. Does anyone know how the white arms law in India is?

16th January 2017, 06:22 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,282	It seems not too long ago, it may have been posted here, there were a number of historically valuable very old Indian swords, including khandas and patissa forms. These had blades cut off about 1/3 down from hilt. They were well patinated, and sold in an 'as is' lot in an auction. While no provenance was noted, it would seem these may have been in a small arsenal or store of weapons, and as they were important traditional arms, their retention may have been allowed if they were neutralized. This is contrary to the outcome in the well known larger armouries where select weapons were held aside but the bulk were destroyed as scrap . The items being dumped at sea were described in Robert Elgood's book on Islamic firearms but reference not handy at the moment.

16th January 2017, 07:10 PM	#4
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	One other possibility, which has not been mentioned above if I read correctly, is that these (or at least some) are modern made and aged copies. I have an Indian friend who has said to me that I should NOT buy anything from India described as "old" or "antique" unless I have watertight provenance. His comment was that India is the new China in terms of copies. This of course is not necessarily an all encompassing statement, but simply that extreme care should be taken when buying "old" items. It should also perhaps be noted that there are, from time to time, many "old" and "antique" powder flasks being advertised from India, "made by" such well known makers as Hawksley etc. Stu

16th January 2017, 07:54 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	OK, guys, additional information. I contacted Fernando and he was unbelievably helpful. He sent me an English translation of p.189 from Rainer Daehnhardts book "Men, Swords and Tomatos" ( the latter is a Portugese slang for "Balls") as well as his old post here about his conversation with RD post book reading. Here they are: Daehnhardt's book: ''' The main charateristic of this arm is little known, but rather interesting. Apart from individual arms that were manufactured for high rank personalities, more simple tulwars were also produced, in large quantities, for the Sovereigns arsenals. Invasions, popular insubordinations and palatial revolutions were very frequent. Few were the Sovereigns that dyed of natural causes. The state of war between ones and others was a frequente situation. In this atmosphere it became obvious that the possession and access to the arsenals were a preocupation of the greatest priority. A system was invented that impeached the possibility of using an Indian arsenal from one moment to the other. The handles of tulwars were built in metal ( usually iron ), joining guard, grip and pommel in one only piece, which doesn't happen in the majority of white weapons of other origins, where all these components were separated one from eachother. As tulwars handles were one only part, it became easy to join all these in one arsenal ( we are talking, in round numbers, in the order of the one hundred thousand handles ), and build a tower where these could be well kept with "seven keys" ( my commas , for a Portuguese figure of speech ). In another tower, distant from the first one, the respective blades were kept. When a sovereign decided to invade a neighbour country or prepare himself to defend his own, such event would be known within months of antecipation, which allowed for the mounting of the blades in their handles. Such blades had a short tang, which was neither peened, screwed, or stuck by a pin. To couple the blade with the grip, the late was turned upsidown, pouring in into his hollow part heated pitch, therefore liquid, as the blade was inserted. Once the pith cooled down, the blade would be fixed enough for battle, during years. In case it started to oscilate, the fixing system could allways be repeated. A strategic Sovereign would know how much time he needed to mount his army weapons and, taking precaution, had his arsenals ready in due time for the distribution of tulwars. In case of a mutiny or a palatial revolution, there was no time to mount the tulwars, in a manner that the arsenals were relatively protected from improper utilization.''' Fernando's follow-up message: Hi Ariel, I was precisely answering your first email...my email server got stuck. Yes, this was a two part story. First, and as you already spotted, the text copied from page 189 of the said book Men Swords and Tomatos (read 'balls'). And as this has generated some skepticism, namely from the side of one such 'Spiral', i have visited Daehnhardt and raised the problem. His answered is contained in a post i submitted in a later thread, as follows: ... I have visited Rainer Daehnhardt shops in Lisbon, and i had in mind to ask him to coment on some parts of his book that have been considered discusseable. Concerning the tulwars being stored in separate places, he stil assumes what he has written in the book. But i have learnt that he was referring to a specific case, and not to generality. In one of his (three?) visits to India, around 1970, he met a certain Maharaja in the north whom, at time of visiting his arsenal, asked him whether he wanted to see the blades first, or the hilts. For the case, they were kept in two towers, located about one kilometer away from each other. The reason explained for such attitude was the one we already know. He said ( i didn't ask him ) that the Maharaja's name was complex and dificult to memorize ... "Bija" something or the like... Best wishes Fernando Thanks a lot, Fernando!!!!!

16th January 2017, 08:02 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694

17th January 2017, 04:43 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Fernando/Ariel, very well done, and thank you very much for the translation. It seems to me, that keeping the hilts and the blades apart, was a question, which Rainer Daehnhardt should have been digging a bit more into - a pity he didn't. This 'habit' of keeping hilts and blade seperat, could be due to, how much the Maharaja trusted his employees, and the people he was ruling over. I feel sure, that had it been general, people like Egerton, Hendley, Kipling and others, living there and commenting on armouries would have mentioned it, as the habit, as far as I know, is very far form the European way to do it - and so, such a habit, must have been very strange to them.