Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde
Emanuel and Richard are right, the first one shown has nothing to do with a bagh nakh, it is for parrying maybe to spike the opponents shield.
The bagh nakh is 'tiger claws' hidden in the hand, so the later ones shown, with a dagger at each end, is more than doubtful to be a bagh nakh, as it can hardly be hidden the way it should be.
|
Jens, there is no rule that I know of that bagh nakh had to be hideable, many bagh nakh that I have seen could not actually have been hidden due to their size except maybe in the dark, some were smaller or had folding blades so it could be hidden but most that I have seen had several claws sticking out, not exactly something you could put into your front pocket. My bagh nakh is 5.25 in long with 1.5 in claws, not something you could easly hide. The word that Stone uses is "concealed", other descriptions do not mention "hidden" or "concealed" at all. Some bagh nakh did have blades attached making this form not hideable at all, these types maybe need a hyphenated name like the tabar-zaghnal but they are just as much a bagh nakh as a dagger.
A few references that do not mention "concealed" or "hidden".
On the left from "Chambers's Journal", W. & R. Chambers, 1892.
On the right from "Life in Bombay, and the neighbouring out-stations" Richard Bentley, 1852.
On the bottom from George Stone.