Early Khanjarli?

[corrado26]

I got this item some weeks ago and wonder how old it might be. Because of the very simple decoration of the blade with just some straight fullers I think it could be rather old, but may be I am totally wrong..............

[ariel]

Khanjarli as a rule are at least 17-18 century. Since they like most of Indian weapons were custom made, their construction and decorations differ widely from one another.
I would not know how to distinguish “ early” from “later” forms and what these mean.
But yours by definition is old and in a very good shape.

Good acquisition.

[corrado26]

Many thanks for this helpful information
corrado26

[Kubur]

It's a beautiful dagger.
I have the feeling that the blade and the guard are older and belong to a chillanum and it was rehilted in the early 19th c as a khanjarli.
Look at the branch, it was added later.
You should clean the little holes of your chillanum guard... :)

[mariusgmioc]

Maybe a gut feeling, maybe just the tired look of the blade make me think this might be a 17th century dagger.

Very nice piece!

[corrado26]

I
You should clean the little holes of your chillanum guard... :)
I did it, thanks for the advice, I didn't know that these are holes.

[corrado26]

I
You should clean the little holes of your chillanum guard... :)
I did it, thanks for the advice, I didn't know that these are holes. Now it looks quite different

[ariel]

Replacement of grip plates is not only possible, but is quite likely: organic materials do not hold as long as metal parts.

Elgood, in his description of all-metal Indian daggers, specifically mentioned their indestructibility.

I have a khanjarli, also likely 17-18 century, with dried and shrunken bone grip and broken off fragments.

Some of the current Forumites, myself included, can also boast such “ kisses of time”:-)

[ariel]

The blade and knuckle guard of khanjarli and chillanum are virtually identical.
In fact, both are the same dagger with only ethnic difference in decoration, i.e. contour of the handle. We see the same principle in local varieties of tulwar handles, in pesh-kabz/ “karud”/ choora, S. Arabian vs. N. Arabian vs Persian shamshirs, Yemeni janbias etc, etc.

[ariel]

I would guess that's how a 17-18th century old khanjarli would look like by now.
The bony parts of the handle are deeply pigmented by are, sweat and dirt; I cannot even decide whether they are ivory or bone. Judging by the size of the pommel fragments, I could cautiously suggest ivory as the material.

[Kubur]

The last khanjarli posted is from the late 19th c. and it has bone grips.
I have something very similar too...

[Kubur]

I did it, thanks for the advice, I didn't know that these are holes. Now it looks quite different

It's much better and now you see what I mean with the chillanum.
I don't know if the chillanum is the ancestor of the khanjarli but these weapons are from the same family and they are not the same!

[ariel]

Kubur,


I really admire your ability to distinguish elephant ivory from cattle bone from a distant photograph of a a discolored and stained fragment of organic material:-)

This is surpassable only by your astute dating of a object as belonging not only to the 19th, but pinpointing it to the end of 19th century:-)


Do you mind sharing with us the secrets of your wisdom?