Persian inscription- Late 18th century Shamshir

[kwiatek]

Originally Posted by KharaghdariSingh

Hello everyone,

I have bought this Late 18th century Shamshir a while ago, with a Persian inscription on the inside of the hilt's knuckle guard. The Shamshir, from what the seller said, and what I've seen myself in the past, is from the late 18th century, from Punjab. The blade is composed of Dark Wootz(Irani Kara taban) The floral pattern on the hilt, I've seen on other hilts belonging to Punjab in that era. I was wondering if anyone is able to decipher the Persian inscription on the hilt?

I think it's not really Persian, but more likely Hindustani or Panjabi in Persian/Arabic letters. I'm not very experienced in reading this type of inscription, but the first word looks like کهندراو "Khanderao", which actually sounds more Maratha. There's a samvat date at the end - it says sam[v]at, with a date above it, the only numbers of which I can see are 2 and 7, which doesn't help that much. I supposed it could be Vikram Samvat [18]27, which would be 1770.

All the Sikh inscriptions I've seen on pieces of this type say akal saha'i ('may the Immortal One protect ...") followed by the name of the owner. This clearly isn't the same formula, however

[ariel]

To complicate things even further, Shamshir in Persia can be curved or straight, and in Afghanistan, pulwar and Central Asian pseudoshashkas are all shamshirs in local parlance. The bottom line, in Farsi Shamshir was a generic name for a sword, despite literal translation as lion’s tooth, or claw, or tail, depending on the imagination of the author and his preference for different parts of animal anatomy. Same with kilij in Turkish: straight, curved , recurved.

An amusing comment of Elgood on a particular short-bladed dagger stated that for Muslim it would be Khagda, but for a Hindu it would be Ch’hurri. Bichwa and Baku fall into the same bag.

In short, in the great majority of cases the names of different bladed weapons all were called one of the two: sword or knife, long or short. Rational, practical and 100% ethnically determined.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes Marius, I too would regard mine as a tulwar:-) - and maybe add, with an Indian blade.


Swords with a tulwar hilt are mostly/always called a tulwar, regardless if the blade is Persian, European, a copy of an European blade or an Indian blade. However, a kukri with a tulwar hilt is not a tulwar, but a kukri with a tulwar hilt. In this case we, suddenly, regard the blade as the most important.

[ariel]

Polish school of arms history and identification places hilts as a defining feature ( determines ethnicity and manner of fencing).
Other schools and individuals emphasize blades as the working part of the weapon.
There is no unified agreement whether this one should be called tulwar with shamshir blade or shamshir with tulwar blade.

The final word would unquestionably belong to the owner: if Muslim, he would likely use the latter variant, if Hindu - the former one. Both would be absolutely correct.

South Indians used straight European blades and called the final creation Firanghi. The same sword with Indian blade would be called Dhup in Deccan, and Asa Shamshir in North India.

Interesting what did they use for a saber with Indian hilt and British blade or Indian blade with British hilt:-)

Regretfully, the original owners are no longer answering our phone calls or e-mails:-(((

[KharaghdariSingh]

Originally Posted by kwiatek

I think it's not really Persian, but more likely Hindustani or Panjabi in Persian/Arabic letters. I'm not very experienced in reading this type of inscription, but the first word looks like کهندراو "Khanderao", which actually sounds more Maratha. There's a samvat date at the end - it says sam[v]at, with a date above it, the only numbers of which I can see are 2 and 7, which doesn't help that much. I supposed it could be Vikram Samvat [18]27, which would be 1770.

All the Sikh inscriptions I've seen on pieces of this type say akal saha'i ('may the Immortal One protect ...") followed by the name of the owner. This clearly isn't the same formula, however

I believe the first letter of the inscription is an an "alif". The ک is just the part where the koftgari stops, and the inscription begins, although it does look like the letter.

[kwiatek]

I don’t think it can be an alif because it is joined to the next letter. That leaves lam or kaf/gaf. I would go for the latter as I’ve seen “Khanderao” on several inscriptions spelt this way, including for Khanderao Gaekwad, though I think this is earlier than that. I thought the word before sam[v]at might be “Narsingh” but it’s very hard to see

[Jens Nordlunde]

Now you are into a discussion where, few or any can follow you, so please tell us in which language it is, and from which area.

[ariel]

As per Elgood’s text in the Jodhpur book, names ending in “- rao” or starting in “khan-“ are seen among Rajastani inscriptions. And the overall style of decoration would fit. In short, I doubt Deccani attribution.

[kwiatek]

I wouldn’t suggest this was Deccani. Just that owner’s first name may have been “Khanderao” or a variant on it, though I may be wrong. The most famous Khanderaos were the Maratha ruler Khanderao Gaekwad of Baroda in Gujarat and Apa Khanderao, the Maratha general who under the Scindias of Gwalior took quite a bit of North India including Haryana. As I say though, late Indian inscriptions are not my forte and I can ask someone I know who specializes in them

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ok the language/inscription are important, but have any one taken an interest in the decoration?