![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,145
|
![]()
Hi Ariel,
I should develop here. For Nimcha, takouba, kaskara, the differences are obvious with local hilts and imported blades. With Japanese swords, it is another league and a "national sport". Blades were kept in families for hundred of years, mounted and remounted on new hilts, up to the WWII. Elgood's great discovery was to say "eh guys, it is not because you have an Indian sword with an Indian hilt and an Indian blade that the sword has a unique provenance". It was a big kick in the ass for many curators... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: U.K.
Posts: 5
|
![]()
Wow! Thanks very much everyone. What a fascinating topic.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 415
|
![]()
A couple of points -
The sword, including the hilt, could be British. Most of those we come across are marked 'Mole', but who's to say there aren't any unmarked ones. Although the EIC was nationalised after the Mutiny and all it's 'governmental' functions were removed it did limp on as a minor commercial concern for another 15 years, principally, I believe, as a tea agent or shipper. I have no idea whether or not it imported British tulwars into India. Best wishes Richard |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,583
|
![]() Quote:
Well noted Richard, I recall having a couple of those 'MOLE' marked tulwars years ago and always thought them most interesting. I believe there were considerable others that were unmarked (I think these tulwars were all produced latter 19th even as late as 1920s). There were many tulwars which were produced by armourers and outfitters situated in India, and these were of course unmarked. While supposedly most British exports to India went through the 'stores' channel, many did not and circumvented that official venue (ISD=India Stores Dept). As a 'private' entity now under the British government of India, rather than its own controlling de facto government there, the 'Company' no longer maintained its own army and indeed focused on commodities and commercial affairs. As such it likely had security forces much as many larger enterprises and concerns so arms marked in this manner were much as materials traded. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|