Tulwar, Talwar ID help please.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Well I agree but this statment applies to at least of 80% of ethno swords, not only Indian ones...
From Takouba to Katana

Undoubtedly, sword handles, especially made of organic material, h a tendency to deteriorate and were replaced. That was true also with full-metal handles as well.
But generally, the style of a handle remained the same.
India, however, was a multiethnic entity with decidedly ethnic styles. And that helps to figure out the blade/handle compatibility. Also,some styles of handles help in dating. And on top of that, there are minute details differentiating age and locality of manufacture.
In the majority of cases compatibility and lack thereof is doable by super-specialists of the Elgood’s caliber. Jens can do it with katars like few others.

I can pick up the crudest differences only.....

[Kubur]

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...

[Badgerbag]

Wow! Thanks very much everyone. What a fascinating topic.

[Richard G]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

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

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.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

India, however, was a multiethnic entity with decidedly ethnic styles. And that helps to figure out the blade/handle compatibility. Also,some styles of handles help in dating. And on top of that, there are minute details differentiating age and locality of manufacture.

Just quoting this to emphasize it/because I agree with it so much. There truly are a fascinating amount of minute details that separate different regional styles, at least back in the day when they were actually produced solely in their native regions. I myself am very much a student to this subject, as much of a fools game as it might seem, as it becomes quite rewarding to be able to look at south indian objects and attribute them to somewhere outside of just "the deccan" and Thanjavur lol.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

Just quoting this to emphasize it/because I agree with it so much. There truly are a fascinating amount of minute details that separate different regional styles, at least back in the day when they were actually produced solely in their native regions. I myself am very much a student to this subject, as much of a fools game as it might seem, as it becomes quite rewarding to be able to look at south indian objects and attribute them to somewhere outside of just "the deccan" and Thanjavur lol.

Nihl, we are all 'students' of this most intriguing field, and constantly learning. That is what is most important, as we share observations, notes, ideas and examples we all advance in the shared knowledge.

G.N.Pant in his notably useful book (1980) made a valiant effort in trying to classify hilts by regions and similar classifications. These were reasonably supported, however with the reality of the constant flux and diffusion of weapons the most important factor he did establish was establishing a certain semantics in noting particular styles and features. While not always exactly correct, these present an effective 'rule of thumb'.

To those of us deeply involved in seriously pursuing the continued study of these most fascinating and extremely esoteric weapons, it is most assuredly far from a fools game (though the 'name game' does get a bit pretentious).
Robert Elgood very much 'set the stage' for the current levels of understanding we now have , and the other serious scholars who have constantly kept the pace in kind have given us remarkable knowledge in the quest.

It is true, the effort to use distinct and concise classification to Indian weapons is pretty difficult to achieve in many (often even most) cases, but the efforts of those who have toiled to narrow these down have given us most exciting results.