Ram's head khanjar for comment

[Cthulhu]

This dagger (which I'm calling a khanjar) recently came into my possession. I'd be curious to know anyone's opinion on it. If it's old, how old and where from, or am I going to be sad to learn it's made for ebay? It has one of the more artistically accurate animals I've seen on a knife, but the horns do seem a tad outlandish and impractical for a actual-use knife. And, if it's actually period-made, if anyone would be willing to PM me a valuation, I'd be grateful.

Also I'd love to see any photos similar figural hilts in member's collections.

Thanks!

[ariel]

Yes, Indo-Persian Khanjar.
The handle is old, with spots of rust, tarnish and pitting.
The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
There is some black mastique oozing from the slit in the handle. Epoxy?
Where did you get it from?
Rajastan?
I am sorry for my paranoid remarks, but that's IMHO.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel you came first:-), but I would also like to know, what are the flaws on the blade in the third picture?

[estcrh]

Yes, Indo-Persian Khanjar.
The handle is old, with spots of rust, tarnish and pitting.
The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
There is some black mastique oozing from the slit in the handle. Epoxy?
Where did you get it from?
Rajastan?
I am sorry for my paranoid remarks, but that's IMHO.If anything was new I would say the handle is and the blade is old and refitted to the handle, I see no signs of wear on the edges of the handle.

[Cthulhu]

The black lines on the blade in photo 3 are easier to see in the photo than in person, but the upper one looks like a crack or surface forging flaw, and the lower one definitely looks like a crack, particularly because it has a similar line directly on the other side of the blade. I can just barely feel their presence rubbing the point of a toothpick across them.

I can't tell what the black material holding the blade in place is. Is black an unlikely color for an authentic piece?

The blade doesn't seem much more pristine than a real antique (authenticated by Bonham's) kard I have. But, on the khanjar's blade there's no rust/etc at the base of the blade where it meets the hilt (ie in the hard-to-clean places), that does point more towards newness, I guess, particularly with the hilt having pitting.

I didn't get the knife in Rajastan, no. It was in the US.

And I'm slightly confounded that now there are opposite opinions on what's old and what isn't. Maybe both are new? Or old?

And the hilt design; it seems plausible as an old piece?

[estcrh]

The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
.Ariel, I have not seen any newly made Indian daggers that have a wootz pattern that looks as good as this one, except when an older blade is attached to a new handle, do you have any examples. I look at the newly made Ebay examples from Indian and they do not look convincing to me.

[Bob A]

I feel relatively certain that it's a marriage; the blade and hilt did not originate together. I base this on the condition of the hilt, especially near the blade insertion area, relative to the seeming total lack of corrosion on the blade.

When you finally decide you can no longer live with the tension caused by this dichotomy, I'd be pleased to take it off your hands.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

:) ....

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

It is not uncommon for broken blades from other weapons to be incorporated into daggers... I think the damage near the hilt is because of this re match.... Nice hilt and a good example of the Zoomorphic nature of these daggers.

[Battara]

The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
I thought new Indian "wootz" looked different than this........ :confused:

[estcrh]

And I'm slightly confounded that now there are opposite opinions on what's old and what isn't. Maybe both are new? Or old?

And the hilt design; it seems plausible as an old piece?Nothing said here is absolute from what I can see. While rams head hits are common enough I have not seen this particular type before in either old or newly made daggers. I think the blade is old but determining the age of the hilt will be very difficult and in the end you will just have to make your own assessment.

I do not know of any newly made Indian blades that have the look of yours and as for it being fairly clean looking this can be explained in several ways. Unless someone can come up with an example of a similar looking wootz blade that is definitely newly made I would assume that the blade is old and the handle is one of two possibilities, original / old or more recent.

[Sajen]

It is not uncommon for broken blades from other weapons to be incorporated into daggers... I think the damage near the hilt is because of this re match.... Nice hilt and a good example of the Zoomorphic nature of these daggers.

First, I know next to nothing about Indian weapons but in my opinion you have hit the nail here! Old broken blade (from this the cracks in the blade) with an IMVHO old hilt, I see the wear in the good pictures, look the last picture in #1. And also the pitting at the handle let me think it's an old one. Both old/antique and put together I think.

Regards,
Detlef

[mariusgmioc]

First, why Indo-Persian?! I am pretty sure this is a 100% Indian khanjar (AKA Mughal Dagger) that has nothing to do with Persia.

I like to believe that I am pretty familiar with current Indian production of swords & daggers.

In my opinion, both hilt and blade are old.

All recent production examples I have seen have hilts carved in stone (jade, soapstone, agate, jasper, etc.), bone, fake ivory, etc. but definitely not iron. Why?! Because Iron is very dificult to carve. Moreover, your hilt does not bear any characteristic of machining and is almost certainly chiseled and filed by hand. As far as I know, carved iron hilts of this type were quite popular in the 19th century, and that's precisely when I believe your hilt was made.

As with regards with the wootz blade, it appears to be crystalline wootz that was produced by the end of the classic wootz period, namely the first half of 19th century.

However, crystalline wootz quite similar to this is also currently produced but it is quite rare and definitely highly prized. Since yours displays very fine watering, as close as it gets to the classic wootz, I believe it is old because if it were newly produced, it would have been more expensive than classic wootz and would have definitely been mounted in a more exclusive hilt.

As with regards to the crack, it is possible the blade had an earlier mount but was damaged and then was remounted in the current hilt. However, I believe that this may have happened at least a century ago.

My conclusion is that you have an excellent classic example of a 19th century Mughal dagger.

[Bob A]

While I have no problem with the idea that the blade might have been installed in the hilt after, perhaps some time after, the hilt came into being, I suspect it may have been made for a weapon of the relatively same dimensions as it currently exists. My thinking stems from the contours of the blade itself, with the gracefully thickened point and general recurved contours. In other words, the blade seems to me to be pretty much the ideal size and shape for the role it is playing.

This is not to deny the possibility of its having been broken, presumably near the hilt, in an earlier installation. This would also help account for the flaws seen near the hilt.

I'm comfortable locating its origin to an area between the Persian Gulf and the Irrawaddy River, below the Hindu Kush. It is undoubtedly older than I am.

[Cthulhu]

Thanks for the opinions and discussion; it's really interesting to learn a little of the thought process that goes into these evaluations.

Thanks also to Ibrahiim for the photos of other ram's head daggers. Aside from being nice pieces, they help me feel more confident that the protruding horns on my knife aren't ridiculously over-decorative.

I looked at some photos of wootz reproductions and billets on ebay, and I really can't tell the difference between them and my knife. But I also can't tell the difference between them and photos of period wootz, so I think I'm the real point of failure there. Is there somewhere (site/book/forum thread) with an explanation (and better yet side-by-side comparison photos) of what to look for? Or is it more a matter of experience and "feel"?

[estcrh]

It is not uncommon for broken blades from other weapons to be incorporated into daggers... I think the damage near the hilt is because of this re match.... Nice hilt and a good example of the Zoomorphic nature of these daggers.Ibrahiim, two of your examples are modern made.

[mariusgmioc]

Ibrahiim, two of your examples are modern made.

Without better close-up photos is hard to tell.

However, my bet is that they are both old pieces (at least the hilts) but recently decorated. The golden one appears to have a new pattern welded blade, while the silver one appears to have an original wootz blade.

It is very easy to take a dagger like the one in the original posting, replace old/damaged parts (blade, hilt or only fixtures) if necessary, clean it nicely, apply Koftgari lavishly, furbish it with a new matching scabbard and sell it for 3-5 times the price it would have raised in its original state. :cool:

This is a very, very widely spread practice in India these days as Koftgari artists are abundant and their work comes cheap.

[estcrh]

Without better close-up photos is hard to tell.

However, my bet is that they are both old pieces (at least the hilts) but recently decorated. The golden one appears to have a new pattern welded blade, while the silver one appears to have an original wootz blade.


Both are completely modern. No mention of wootz on the first and I think they were being very liberal with this "first quarter of the 20th Century" The second one does not even give a date, look at the sales price / estimates, the auction house knew what these were.

Lot 170: A kardThe Great Sale of Fine & Scarce Antique Arms & Armour, Day 1by Czerny's International Auction HouseMay 25, 2013 Sarzana (SP), Italy

Realized Price: €400 Verified
Estimated Price: €400 - €600
Description: Curved, toothed, double-edged blade, ribbed at the centre, at the forte a mount decorated with silver-inlaid floral motifs; fine, iron grip with pommel shaped as a ram head, entirely silver-inlaid with effigy of peacock among racemes; wooden scabbard with green velvet covering.
provenance: India
dimensions: length 32.5 cm.
dating: first quarter of the 20th Century


A FINE INDO PERSIAN DAMASCUS GOLD NIELLO DAGGER. The slightly curved Damascus steel blade with
Jackson's Auctioneers

Lot closed:
Apr 06, 2013 9am CDT
Estimate:
150 USD - 200 USD

A FINE INDO PERSIAN DAMASCUS GOLD NIELLO DAGGER. The slightly curved Damascus steel blade with saw tooth back, the handle and rams head pommel with ornate gold niello foliage. The velvet covered scabbard with similarly decorated gold niello mounts. Overall length 16 inches (40.7 cm).

[estcrh]

There is a good reason to be a bit suspicious when in doubt.

[estcrh]

Here is one from the Art Institute of Chicago, I have some doubts about this one as well, 17th to 18th century????

Curved Dagger (Khanjar) with Ram-Head Pommel, Mughal period, 17th/18th century

Watered steel inlaid with gold and silver in the kuftgari technique
28.6 x 5.7 x 2.9 cm (11 1/4 x 2 1/4 x 1 1/8 in.)

[estcrh]

Now this one shows some real wear, what you would expect from a genuinely old dagger.

17th Century

India

Wootz Steel.

Lenght: 34.9 cm.

North Indian Khanjar dagger. The hilt is of chiseled steel, with fully-modeled ram’s head pommel. The knucklebow issues from a makara’s mouth and terminates in a horse’s head, while the guard is chiseled with elephant’s heads in relief.

The broad, curved double-edged blade forged of fine silver wootz damascus steel, bears two deep fullers and a pronounced median ridge, developing into a thick armor-piercing tip.

[mariusgmioc]

Here is one from the Art Institute of Chicago, I have some doubts about this one as well, 17th to 18th century????

You have doubts and rightfully so. This one is 19th century at best, but then again, I suspect new Koftgari. So if the Art Institute if Chicago can be so obviously wrong, then...

Possibly the golden one to be completely new, blade scabbard and all Koftgary for sure but the hilt not so sure. It can simply be an old hilt cleaned and decorated anew. Since the whole surface of the hilt is covered in Koftgari, it would be almost impossible to say whether is old or new. :shrug:

As with regards, to the auction house knowing very well what they were selling... based on my experience with quite reputed auction houses, I have serious doubts about that as well.

I have seen myself magnificent antique pieces selling dirt cheap (even acquired a couple of such pieces) and obvious modern replicas selling for extortionately high prices. And I'm talking about reputed and specialised auction houses not about obscure/unknown back-yard ones.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Not wanting to get into a ravel over age on examples of rams heads I have posted I simply loaded on some Rams Heads...Clearly these Hilts have entered the traditions ...and should be viewed as such. The project dagger with probable replacement blade is typical of Indian style.. and is a good example. :shrug:

[estcrh]

Possibly the golden one to be completely new, blade scabbard and all Koftgary for sure but the hilt not so sure. It can simply be an old hilt cleaned and decorated anew. Since the whole surface of the hilt is covered in Koftgari, it would be almost impossible to say whether is old or new. :shrug:

That is why a data base of images is very valuable. Now when you say "As far as I know, carved iron hilts of this type were quite popular in the 19th century" the currently available images do not back this up, yes there are Indian rams head daggers but I know of only a few that are carved iron, this is why when one shows up it gets questioned. Take a look at the photo below, both daggers newly made without a doubt in my opinion.

If anyone has another image of an Indian dagger with a carved iron rams head hilt I would like to see it.

[mariusgmioc]

That is why a data base of images is very valuable. Now when you say "As far as I know, carved iron hilts of this type were quite popular in the 19th century" the currently available images do not back this up, yes there are Indian rams head daggers but I know of only a few that are carved iron, this is why when one shows up it gets questioned. Take a look at the photo below, both daggers newly made without a doubt in my opinion.

If anyone has another image of an Indian dagger with a carved iron rams head hilt I would like to see it.

So what do we have here?!
Two almost identical new pattern welded blades.
Two almost identical new scabbards.
Two almost identical new koftgari works.
Two almost identical ram hilts... that are almost certainly new. :) So, in this case I believe there is very little doubt.

Excellent point!

Yet, this doesn't impair my initial oppinion that the dagger of the original posting is a 19th century piece, both hilt and blade.

[David]

That is why a data base of images is very valuable. Now when you say "As far as I know, carved iron hilts of this type were quite popular in the 19th century" the currently available images do not back this up, yes there are Indian rams head daggers but I know of only a few that are carved iron, this is why when one shows up it gets questioned. Take a look at the photo below, both daggers newly made without a doubt in my opinion.

If anyone has another image of an Indian dagger with a carved iron rams head hilt I would like to see it.
Is not the dagger that you have accepted as old in your post #21 a "carved iron hilt"? Does the existence of this dagger therefore not make a case that such hilts existed in antiquity? :shrug:

[estcrh]

Is not the dagger that you have accepted as old in your post #21 a "carved iron hilt"? Does the existence of this dagger therefore not make a case that such hilts existed in antiquity? :shrug:

David, while we have evidence of rams head hilts, there are not many known examples of carved iron rams head hilts. If they were actually popular ("As far as I know, carved iron hilts of this type were quite popular in the 19th century") were are they?

The one in question seems to have no wear to the edges and in fact has red rust which is sometimes a sign if a newly made iron item. As for the pitting, this can be made through various methods but how do you explain the lack of wear as seen in the hilt of #21?

It may be old and then again it may be new, you have to be a bit skeptical in cases like this.

[David]

Now this one shows some real wear, what you would expect from a genuinely old dagger.
Estcrh, i was referring to THIS dagger (below) of which you made the remark above in post #21, not the originally posted dagger. Then you then asked in post #24:
"If anyone has another image of an Indian dagger with a carved iron rams head hilt I would like to see it."
My point is that apparently one that you have already accept as old has indeed been posted, establishing that such hilts did exist in antiquity. :shrug:

[estcrh]

Estcrh, i was referring to THIS dagger (below) of which you made the remark above in post #21, not the originally posted dagger. Then you then asked in post #24:
"If anyone has another image of an Indian dagger with a carved iron rams head hilt I would like to see it."
My point is that apparently one that you have already accept as old has indeed been posted, establishing that such hilts did exist in antiquity. :shrug:

David, I know which one you are referring to, and it has signs of use as you can see, but were are the other examples if a carved iron rams heads was a "common" hilt type?

I am asking if anyone has any other examples to compare with.

[Sajen]

As with regards, to the auction house knowing very well what they were selling... based on my experience with quite reputed auction houses, I have serious doubts about that as well.

I have seen myself magnificent antique pieces selling dirt cheap (even acquired a couple of such pieces) and obvious modern replicas selling for extortionately high prices. And I'm talking about reputed and specialised auction houses not about obscure/unknown back-yard ones.

Same experience!

[A.alnakkas]

Yes, Indo-Persian Khanjar.
The handle is old, with spots of rust, tarnish and pitting.
The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
There is some black mastique oozing from the slit in the handle. Epoxy?
Where did you get it from?
Rajastan?
I am sorry for my paranoid remarks, but that's IMHO.

I second what Ariel have said. Owned a few of the recently made Indian wootz pieces, good projects if you are making replicas but a complete rip off if sold as antiques. Though some have really good quality and craftmanship.

The wootz is not crystalline but modern wootz tend to be similar to it. The cracks are not sign of age but sign of forging flaws which can happen to this day (unless you believe in the miracle of modern technology, which I doubt Rajastanis are using in mass)

[David]

David, I know which one you are referring to, and it has signs of use as you can see, but were are the other examples if a carved iron rams heads was a "common" hilt type?

I am asking if anyone has any other examples to compare with.
Well, you also posted the one from the Chicago Art Institute, which while perhaps not as old as they claim does seem to be at least antique. Were these "common"? I'm not really sure since this is well outside my collecting interests. But certainly there is a precedent for the form. I don't feel qualified to comment on the age of the original example posted here.

[estcrh]

Well, you also posted the one from the Chicago Art Institute, which while perhaps not as old as they claim does seem to be at least antique. Were these "common"? I'm not really sure since this is well outside my collecting interests. But certainly there is a precedent for the form. I don't feel qualified to comment on the age of the original example posted here.

David, the one from the Chicago Art Institute, which would be considered as a zirah bouk, a rather rare form, is very suspect, first it has only been in their collection from 2014 (Gift of Marilynn B. Alsdorf, 2014), second it is described as having a watered steel blade when it is clearly pattern welded. The whole dagger shows no wear / age and the pattern welding while faintly showing in the image provided looks suspiciously like modern Indian pattern welded dagger blades. Since they got the age wrong (17th/18th century) as well I have no confidence in their authentication methods.

I hesitate to use it as an authentic example but I have enlarged the available image a bit, there may be some other opinions.

[ariel]

Based on the screen shot, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole :-)))

[mariusgmioc]

Talking about the Chicago dagger.

Clearly modern-looking pattern welded blade, suposedly coming from a time when almost all daggers were sporting wootz blades.

If it were for this reason alone and I would suspect a fake.

Also silver Koftgari in exceptionally good condition from a time when gold Koftgari was almost exclusively used.

Everything points to a modern production dagger and how the "specialists"of the Chicago Institute got their oppinion is beyond my understanding.

[estcrh]

Talking about the Chicago dagger............................Everything points to a modern production dagger and how the "specialists"of the Chicago Institute got their oppinion is beyond my understanding.

It happens quite a lot, in private collections, museum collections, auction sales etc, which is why I question the khanjar shown by Cthulhu. I think there is the possibility that the hilt is old but it could also be more modern. The lack of other similar examples both old and new is unusual. The hilt is not worn, the edges are sharp but it is pitted, pitting can be a sign of age but it can also be artificially produced.

Carving steel in this shape was not as common as it seems so how do you accurately determine its age. The work is not extremely detailed and there is no other decoration such as koftgari to judge from. I think that at this time it is impossible to make an accurate age determination but all the same it is a nice unique Indian dagger with a wootz blade.

[mariusgmioc]

It happens quite a lot, in private collections, museum collections, auction sales etc, which is why I question the khanjar shown by Cthulhu. I think there is the possibility that the hilt is old but it could also be more modern. The lack of other similar examples both old and new is unusual. The hilt is not worn, the edges are sharp but it is pitted, pitting can be a sign of age but it can also be artificially produced.

Carving steel in this shape was not as common as it seems so how do you accurately determine its age. The work is not extremely detailed and there is no other decoration such as koftgari to judge from. I think that at this time it is impossible to make an accurate age determination but all the same it is a nice unique Indian dagger with a wootz blade.

Agreed, with the observation that the Ram-head hilts were quite popular in almost all fathomable materials during the 18-19th century, with steel chiseled ones holding quite a prominent position. I have seen several in various Indian museums and also E. Jaiwant Paul in his book "Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India" mentions them as being popular (he also shows some examples from National Museum, that in my oppinion also show some very generous age allocation).

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I refer readers to http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/printthread.php?t=7058 and at the forth post down the list...Jim McDougall outlines an interesting set of notes.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

:) Here is an example of how the Rams head transitioned or was copied as a sword hilt..

[estcrh]

:) Here is an example of how the Rams head transitioned or was copied as a sword hilt..


From the collection of Arms and Armour in the Prince of Wales Museum, now known as Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sanghrahalaya, Mumbai India.

[estcrh]

Agreed, with the observation that the Ram-head hilts were quite popular in almost all fathomable materials during the 18-19th century, with steel chiseled ones holding quite a prominent position. I have seen several in various Indian museums and also E. Jaiwant Paul in his book "Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India" mentions them as being popular (he also shows some examples from National Museum, that in my oppinion also show some very generous age allocation).

I have used every combination of search terms I could think of and looked through the images I know of from Indian Museums and still I have not found any more images of carved iron rams head dagger hilts.

If they were "prominent" and "common" why is it so hard to find any additional images of one? I also thought they were more widely used but what at first appeared to be old turned out to be modern on close inspection.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The Met SEE http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/452103 for a Rams Head Hilt. I the case of the Met exhibit is of Kuldan style ...which is perhaps described reasonably at http://www.sneharateria.com/let-kundan-jewelry-and-meenakari-speak-for-itself/http://www.sneharateria.com/let-kundan-jewelry-and-meenakari-speak-for-itself/

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

:) Please see http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14942 from #2 of that reference I Quote"
The rams head is termed 'meshamuki' (Pant, 1980, New Delhi, p.113, fig. 294, mesha=sheep, but applies to ram as well). Most of these 'rams head' hilts on daggers or swords seem associated with Rajputs in N. India in the periods noted. According to the Vedas, many animals and creatures are associated as vehicles for various divinities in the Hindu pantheon of deities, and the ram is one for that of the four Agnivashi clans' ". Unquote.

[David]

The Met SEE http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/452103 for a Rams Head Hilt.
It does not appear to be shaped from iron though, which is the type of ram's head hilt i believe Estrch was questioning as being common in antiquity.

[mariusgmioc]

I have seen a few iron ram heded daggers in the museums I visited in Rajahstan, but I didn't take any photos of them as they looked quite dull and uninteresting. Maybe that's why there aren't so many photos of them on the net, because they don't look very spectacular. :shrug:

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Another Ramshead Dagger is at http://library.clevelandart.org/node/238552

[estcrh]

I have seen a few iron ram heded daggers in the museums I visited in Rajahstan, but I didn't take any photos of them as they looked quite dull and uninteresting. Maybe that's why there aren't so many photos of them on the net, because they don't look very spectacular. :shrug:

Being able to hand carve any type of animals head from a solid piece of iron / steel with primitive tools is quite spectacular to me, and much more interesting than plain iron hilts of which there are many examples, so how about if we look for ANY type of carved iron dagger hilt with an animals head.....ram, horse, elephant etc.

[mariusgmioc]

Being able to hand carve any type of animals head from a solid piece of iron / steel with primitive tools is quite spectacular to me, and much more interesting than plain iron hilts of which there are many examples, so how about if we look for ANY type of carved iron dagger hilt with an animals head.....ram, horse, elephant etc.

"The Arts of the Muslim Knight," page 220

"Arms and Armour: Traditional weapons of India," page 50, 73, 78, 83, 84, 139, 140

Some of them may be other metals (gilt brass) but most are iron.

PS: Yes, carving iron is difficult but it was quite wide spread and the Katar you showed in your earlier posting is just one of the many examples of such ironwork. To my knowledge, iron animal head hilts were mostly popular in the 19th century, but I cannot remember where I got this information from. Tried to find in a few of my books but couldn't find it there so it might be anecdotal. :shrug:

[estcrh]

"The Arts of the Muslim Knight," page 220

"Arms and Armour: Traditional weapons of India," page 50, 73, 78, 83, 84, 139, 140

Some of them may be other metals (gilt brass) but most are iron.

PS: Yes, carving iron is difficult but it was quite wide spread and the Katar you showed in your earlier posting is just one of the many examples of such ironwork. To my knowledge, iron animal head hilts were mostly popular in the 19th century, but I cannot remember where I got this information from. Tried to find in a few of my books but couldn't find it there so it might be anecdotal. :shrug:Here is one that seems to be carved iron / steel, from the Met Museum.

Indian khanjar dagger, 17th century, steel, iron, silver, copper alloy, H. 14 3/16 in. (36 cm); W. 3 1/4 in. (8.3 cm); Wt. 12.8 oz. (362.9 g), Met Museum.

[mariusgmioc]

Here is one that seems to be carved iron / steel, from the Met Museum.

Indian khanjar dagger, 17th century, steel, iron, silver, H. 14 3/16 in. (36 cm); W. 3 1/4 in. (8.3 cm); Wt. 12.8 oz. (362.9 g), Met Museum.

Isn't it copper or brass?!

Anyhow, the margins of the hilt are pretty much like those of the one in the original posting.

But again... 17th century (namely 1600+) ?!?! I doubt! Much more likely 19th century!

[estcrh]

Isn't it copper or brass?!

Anyhow, the margins of the hilt are pretty much like those of the one in the original posting.

But again... 17th century (namely 1600+) ?!?! I doubt! Much more likely 19th century!I am not sure if it was cast or carved but the hilt is iron according the the Museums description. Now here is an interesting statement. "This dagger is exceptional in that its hilt is made entirely of iron." This seems to indicate that in the opinion of the Museum, iron / steel zoomorphic hilts were not common.....humm.




Animal-head daggers came into fashion at the Mughal court in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. Horses were the most popular subject, followed by nilgai (a large antelope from India), lions, tigers, goats, and camels, usually carved from nephrite jade, serpentine, marble, or ivory.

This dagger is exceptional in that its hilt is made entirely of iron. The lion’s mane retains traces of silver, and its deep-set eyes were formerly jeweled.

References
Pyhrr, Stuart W., Donald J. La Rocca, and Mr. Morihiro Ogawa. Arms and Armor: Notable Acquisitions 1991-2002. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 4, 2002–June, 29 2003. p. 40, no. 36, ill.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Being able to hand carve any type of animals head from a solid piece of iron / steel with primitive tools is quite spectacular to me, and much more interesting than plain iron hilts of which there are many examples, so how about if we look for ANY type of carved iron dagger hilt with an animals head.....ram, horse, elephant etc.

Taking all varieties of Zoomorphic headed hilts is one way to do it... after all threads take their own line naturally and there are no rules as such to direct in which way we ought to pursue these...however, there are many zo omorphic themed hilts which are quite different in region and makeup thus it will become a little messy no? One post may illustrate lion heads whilst another may still be examining rams heads ...the confusion could be very difficult to control...so I advise and suggest sticking to one form and if another form falls under scrutiny the member can start another thread but the focus of each thread should be clear...and on this thread we focus upon Rams Heads. A researcher can thus be assured that when working on Rams Heads in future that our Library is accurate and true... You want Rams Heads? Here they are!!...If a Forumite wishes to raise the thread Zoomorphic heads on Daggers and Swords...so be it but it will be clear to researchers that this is what is in the thread...a general approach rather than a detailed pin point look at a specific or more general approach...
This is a great thread and all participants have given it a good airing... thus I do not want to be difficult... and will en devour to run with the ball in whatever direction it goes but I recommend one head at a time...lest it gets in a tangle... :)

[estcrh]

Taking all varieties of Zoomorphic headed hilts is one way to do it..Ibrahiim, actually not "all varieties", just carved iron / steel ones, this is due to the relative lack of any one type.

[mariusgmioc]

"This dagger is exceptional in that its hilt is made entirely of iron." This seems to indicate that in the opinion of the Museum, iron / steel zoomorphic hilts were not common.....humm.



These additional photos quite clearly prove it is iron.

Maybe they consider it exceptional for 17th century. Maybe they consider it exceptional because thy didn't see another. However, I have seen a few and I don't think it was exceptional in the 19th century.

Moreover, you found yourself a couple of iron carved zoomorphic hilts.
I found others (at least a couple of the ones I indicated are iron).

Now how many more do you think are needed to officially say they were "common"?!

What relevance will it have as the next question might be "how common" or "define common"?!
:shrug:

I believe the essential point was to demonstrate the existence of such hilts as early as 17th century and whether there were only one hundred made or ten thousand is less relevant.

[estcrh]

These additional photos quite clearly prove it is iron.

Maybe they consider it exceptional for 17th century. Maybe they consider it exceptional because thy didn't see another. However, I have seen a few and I don't think it was exceptional in the 19th century.

Moreover, you found yourself a couple of iron carved zoomorphic hilts.
I found others (at least a couple of the ones I indicated are iron).

Now how many more do you think are needed to officially say they were "common"?!

What relevance will it have as the next question might be "how common" or "define common"?!
:shrug:

I believe the essential point was to demonstrate the existence of such hilts as early as 17th century and whether there were only one hundred made or ten thousand is less relevant.I would not call carved iron zoomorphic hilted daggers common when there are only two images available besides the one being discussed here. I do not have the books you mentioned and have not seen the images they contain and I have not seen any images from Indian museums but still over several hundred years I would expect to see many more if they were that common. It may be that iron / steel was a much harder material to carve than stone and ivory and was just not a popular material for the people who would have made these types of hilts.

[estcrh]

Here is another one with a horse head hilt, this one though is described as being cast, I think the lion head one may be cast as well, there seems to be a what could be a casting line on it (red arrrows).

Indian (Mughal) khanjar dagger, 18th century, watered steel hilt cast in two parts, the head with its mane to one side, the forelock falling on the forehead, the mouth open, with finely cast nostrils, two rivets to hold the long double curved, double edged blade of fine watered-steel, with central ridge, 17 3/8in. (44.1cm.) long.

[mariusgmioc]

Here is another one with a horse head hilt, this one though is described as being cast, I think the lion head one may be cast as well, there seems to be a what could be a casting line on it (red arrrows).

Of course it is originally cast. Almost all metallic hilts are first cast in a raw shape, then chiseled to give them the final detailed shape.

They are definitely not chiseled directly from a raw iron ingot.

And one of the easiest things to do is to polish off the casting line.

[Cthulhu]

One thing I'm noticing in the hilt photos is that there don't seem to be a lot (aside from ones that are modern) where there are horns or ears that stick out very far. It's one thing for a hilt to be carved to look like a lion/tiger/bear/etc, but perhaps it's entirely another for it to have actual horns. My dagger appears to have horns made separately and welded into place. Or...it's just occurred to me...perhaps they're epoxied into place. There's a lot of blackness and discoloration right around the base of the horns. Is there a non-destructive test for epoxy or other glues?

[mariusgmioc]

One thing I'm noticing in the hilt photos is that there don't seem to be a lot (aside from ones that are modern) where there are horns or ears that stick out very far. It's one thing for a hilt to be carved to look like a lion/tiger/bear/etc, but perhaps it's entirely another for it to have actual horns. My dagger appears to have horns made separately and welded into place. Or...it's just occurred to me...perhaps they're epoxied into place. There's a lot of blackness and discoloration right around the base of the horns. Is there a non-destructive test for epoxy or other glues?

I assume that if you polish the area until it is completely free of oxidation, and examine it with a magnifying glass, you should be able to tell if it was welded or glued. But this might be seen as destructive already.
:shrug:

PS: However, this is a very interesting observation that would almost certainly indicate a much more recent production.

[estcrh]

Of course it is originally cast. Almost all metallic hilts are first cast in a raw shape, then chiseled to give them the final detailed shape.

They are definitely not chiseled directly from a raw iron ingot.

Interesting, I did not give the process much thought, but if this was the case there really should be more examples.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Could be that it was made in cire-perdy (or however it is spelled). In that case there would likely only be one example.

[mariusgmioc]

Could be that it was made in cire-perdy (or however it is spelled). In that case there would likely only be one example.

Cire-perdue (lost-wax) process maybe if it were bronze but almost certainly not iron.

On second thoughts, I doubt that the horns can be cast even in bronze with the wax process. :shrug:

[Battara]

Horns can be done in lost wax, but if iron - crazy difficult and in parts.

[estcrh]

Cire-perdue (lost-wax) process maybe if it were bronze but almost certainly not iron.

I think sand casting would be the method for making an iron / steel hilt, lost wax is good for metals with a low melting point. With sand casting I do not think you would get as much detail as you would with lost wax.

[mariusgmioc]

I think sand casting would be the method for making an iron / steel hilt, lost wax is good for metals with a low melting point. With sand casting I do not think you would get as much detail as you would with lost wax.

Exactly! That's why after casting, the Iron hilts need to be processed to give them the desired finish and detail.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Another rams head

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

More rams...http://suroorasia.blogspot.com/2014/10/unique-reference-islamic-and-oriental.html shows an excellent multiple and is from a very famous author... :)

[estcrh]

Another rams head ...two in fact... On Jewelery for comparison... :)


Persian gold.

Beautiful Achaemenid Persian solid gold bracelet, featuring a woven design on the band, with two ram heads mounted on each terminal. Each ram heads are realistically rendered and are decorated with intricate and abstract patterns. Rams in ancient Persia were held in high regard as they were seen as a symbol of virility. These styles of bracelets can be traced back to Persepolis, the capital city of ancient Persia and were usually found in the ancient Royal courts of the city. This particular bracelet was likely a tribute to the King. Weight: 3.5 oz.

[estcrh]

Yes, Indo-Persian Khanjar.
The handle is old, with spots of rust, tarnish and pitting.
The blade, however, is pristine and the wootz pattern is very similar to modern Indian examples.
There is some black mastique oozing from the slit in the handle. Epoxy?
Where did you get it from?
Rajastan?
I am sorry for my paranoid remarks, but that's IMHO.
After seeing some clearly modern but well made swords with wootz blades and hilts being sold on Ebay I think this whole dagger may in fact be a new creation. Here is an example.

[estcrh]

More rams...http://suroorasia.blogspot.com/2014/10/unique-reference-islamic-and-oriental.html shows an excellent multiple and is from a very famous author... :)


Enamelled Dagger National Museum, New Delhi (India)
Late 17th Century
Place of Origin: Rajasthan, Rajput
Materials: Steel
Dimensions: L: 34.9 cm.


The ram-shaped hilt of metal is profusely encrusted with rubies, emeralds and other jewels. The sheath of metal is delicately perforated with images of birds, animals and creeper designs.

[mariusgmioc]

After seeing some clearly modern but well made swords with wootz blades and hilts being sold on Ebay I think this whole dagger may in fact be a new creation. Here is an example.

Contrary to my initial oppinion, I concede that you may be right. There are indeed quite a few very good, traditional, but newly made wootz blades on the market. And they are sold as antiques. :eek:

[estcrh]

Contrary to my initial oppinion, I concede that you may be right. There are indeed quite a few very good, traditional, but newly made wootz blades on the market. And they are sold as antiques. :eek:

If what I have seen is what I think it is then this very scary. People are being fooled by a new wootz that is a step above what has previously been called "wootz". The swords I have seen have no scabbard or obviously newly made ones, and the swords show no sigh of wear / age etc but they are fooling people, some are selling for a lot of money.

Take a look at this, the cracks in the metal, the lack of wear, the wootz pattern, there is some red rust, this makes me think that the steel rams head dagger being discussed here is of the same type, a modern made replica. The rams head hilt is atypical with other similar examples and while it is pitted there is no sign of wear as you would expect to see on a 100+yr old dagger and there is a small amount of what looks like red rust on it as well. To many warning signs in my opinion.

[Cthulhu]

I'm glad we're moving towards consensus. On the other hand, it's a disappointing consensus.

Oh well; they can't all be antiques.

[estcrh]

I'm glad we're moving towards consensus. On the other hand, it's a disappointing consensus.

Oh well; they can't all be antiques.There is still no smoking gun but there is a lot of room for doubt. On the bright side, even if newly made it is an excellent example showing some skill and workmanship not often seen in modern made examples. Many people would not mind owning your dagger even if they knew for sure that it was newly made.

[Ian]

Cthulhu:

I don't think you should feel guilty or ashamed for buying a nice dagger believing it was perhaps older than it is. There is a strong market for these well made knives and they are produced within a culture that has been making them for centuries. It's a genuine Indian knife made in an older style, but probably produced recently and not an antique. We all live and learn. :)

I know a few people who would pay several hundred dollars for such a knife.

I'm glad we're moving towards consensus. On the other hand, it's a disappointing consensus.

Oh well; they can't all be antiques.