My first Tulwar

Jim McDougall · 11th September 2007, 07:08 AM

I think you have done well again Fernando!
I would give Ariel a high grade in his assessment of this tulwar (if I were an Indian specialist

The term 'Delhishahi' if I am not mistaken derives from the Pant typology on Indian hilts ("Indian Arms & Armour" Dr. G.N.Pant, 1980)and this hilt may be considered by that term using that reference. While the term may suggest Delhi as the region for the origins of the hilt form, the actual categorization of tulwar hilt forms by region remains unresolved, and Dr.Pant's work remains an important benchmark for future studies. The book itself I still consider a most valuable resource for the comprehensive data it contains on Indian weaponry.

I would agree that this is likely a late 18th-early 19th c. tulwar probably Rajput and most likely from Rajasthan regions. I am inclined to doubt that the blade is wootz, and agree completely with Lew, leave the patination alone.
The incised motif is indeed often seen on hunting weapons (shikargaha) with images of animals , and figures of the Hindu pantheon are often on blades in low relief on sacrificial weapons. While this does not appear to be such a weapon it may have been intended as a court or parade weapon, but the floral /vegetal motif is unclear. Botanical symbolism was key in varying application in Hindu symbolism and is beautifully described in Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual" , so perhaps closer analysis of the depictions on this blade might reveal more.

Does the motif only appear on one side of the blade Fernando?

Best regards,
Jim

Jens Nordlunde · 11th September 2007, 06:10 PM

Hi Fernando,

Congratulations with your tulwar. It is a nice one. I doubt very much that the blade is wootz, so I would leave it as it is. It can be, but that is seldom, so if you don’t see any trace of wootz, it is not likely to be wootz. I would be somewhat surprised if the decoration is not on both sides – is it Fernando? I have a feeling, but it is a gut feeling mind you that the tulwar, maybe could be pushed a wee further back. How about mid 1800 to beginning of 1900?

Please let us see some picture with neutral background; the yellow gives too much ‘colour’ to the tulwar.

The size is interesting, as it is fairly small, and many of the hunting tulwars ad the same size of the fighting tulwars – no reason to come closer to a lion or a tiger than you had to, so I don’t think it is a hunting tulwar. Not that it could not have been used for hunting, but I don’t think it was made for this reason. You must remember that when they went to war, they often had two tulwars and three to four daggers in their belt, so maybe one of the tulwars was smaller than the other.

Jens

Battara · 11th September 2007, 08:54 PM

I do see possible pattern welding in the other blade side - without out what doing what Ariel mentioned it would be more difficult to be certain.

Jens - that many weapons? Now I know - Vielen Dank!

Lew · 11th September 2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

I do see possible pattern welding in the other blade side - without out what doing what Ariel mentioned it would be more difficult to be certain.

Jens - that many weapons? Now I know - Vielen Dank!

Battara

I think that what you may be seeing is just some left over oxidation pattern I tried to fix the picture up but did not see anything.

Lew

fernando · 11th September 2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Battara

I think that what you may be seeing is just some left over oxidation pattern I tried to fix the picture up but did not see anything.

Lew

Thanks for both your postings Lew, i think you ( and Jim and Jens ) are quite right. I am unexperienced in the area, but looking at this blade steel i don't discern any activity, except for oxidation and or patination. I am posting a bit more enhanced picture, for confirmation.
fernando

fernando · 11th September 2007, 11:04 PM

Hi Jim,
Much obliged for your comprehensive input. It will take me some time to absorve it. I hope something further comes up on the decoration subject. Eventually this motiv is only on one side of the blade, the back side is plain.

Hi Jens,
I am glad you find this a nice piece. Here are pictures taken with different light and background. As i said above, the decoration is only on one side of the blade. Does this mean something unusual ?
It is a pitty you find the age of this tulwar as recent as 1850-1900

. Jim and Ariel's opinnion was more favourable

... i am a fan of antiquity in weapons. But against facts there are no arguments, as we say over here.

Further coments will be more than welcome. One thing i would love to reach a general consensus is whether this is a ceremonial or an action ( infantry )sword

Thanks all again

fernando

katana · 11th September 2007, 11:36 PM

Usually, though not always, a blade decorated on one side only.... is usually 'ceremonial'. It is a nice Tulwar, I like it , congrats Fernando

I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they

11th September 2007, 11:04 PM	#6
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jim, Much obliged for your comprehensive input. It will take me some time to absorve it. I hope something further comes up on the decoration subject. Eventually this motiv is only on one side of the blade, the back side is plain. Hi Jens, I am glad you find this a nice piece. Here are pictures taken with different light and background. As i said above, the decoration is only on one side of the blade. Does this mean something unusual ? It is a pitty you find the age of this tulwar as recent as 1850-1900 . Jim and Ariel's opinnion was more favourable ... i am a fan of antiquity in weapons. But against facts there are no arguments, as we say over here. Further coments will be more than welcome. One thing i would love to reach a general consensus is whether this is a ceremonial or an action ( infantry )sword Thanks all again fernando Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 12th September 2007 at 12:11 AM.

11th September 2007, 07:08 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,670	I think you have done well again Fernando! I would give Ariel a high grade in his assessment of this tulwar (if I were an Indian specialist The term 'Delhishahi' if I am not mistaken derives from the Pant typology on Indian hilts ("Indian Arms & Armour" Dr. G.N.Pant, 1980)and this hilt may be considered by that term using that reference. While the term may suggest Delhi as the region for the origins of the hilt form, the actual categorization of tulwar hilt forms by region remains unresolved, and Dr.Pant's work remains an important benchmark for future studies. The book itself I still consider a most valuable resource for the comprehensive data it contains on Indian weaponry. I would agree that this is likely a late 18th-early 19th c. tulwar probably Rajput and most likely from Rajasthan regions. I am inclined to doubt that the blade is wootz, and agree completely with Lew, leave the patination alone. The incised motif is indeed often seen on hunting weapons (shikargaha) with images of animals , and figures of the Hindu pantheon are often on blades in low relief on sacrificial weapons. While this does not appear to be such a weapon it may have been intended as a court or parade weapon, but the floral /vegetal motif is unclear. Botanical symbolism was key in varying application in Hindu symbolism and is beautifully described in Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual" , so perhaps closer analysis of the depictions on this blade might reveal more. Does the motif only appear on one side of the blade Fernando? Best regards, Jim

11th September 2007, 06:10 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Fernando, Congratulations with your tulwar. It is a nice one. I doubt very much that the blade is wootz, so I would leave it as it is. It can be, but that is seldom, so if you don’t see any trace of wootz, it is not likely to be wootz. I would be somewhat surprised if the decoration is not on both sides – is it Fernando? I have a feeling, but it is a gut feeling mind you that the tulwar, maybe could be pushed a wee further back. How about mid 1800 to beginning of 1900? Please let us see some picture with neutral background; the yellow gives too much ‘colour’ to the tulwar. The size is interesting, as it is fairly small, and many of the hunting tulwars ad the same size of the fighting tulwars – no reason to come closer to a lion or a tiger than you had to, so I don’t think it is a hunting tulwar. Not that it could not have been used for hunting, but I don’t think it was made for this reason. You must remember that when they went to war, they often had two tulwars and three to four daggers in their belt, so maybe one of the tulwars was smaller than the other. Jens

11th September 2007, 08:54 PM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,345	I do see possible pattern welding in the other blade side - without out what doing what Ariel mentioned it would be more difficult to be certain. Jens - that many weapons? Now I know - Vielen Dank!

11th September 2007, 11:36 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Usually, though not always, a blade decorated on one side only.... is usually 'ceremonial'. It is a nice Tulwar, I like it , congrats Fernando I would have thought that a coverted wootz blade would never be 'heavily engraved' with designs ....or are they