An interesting question, and quite honestly I had never realized the apparent absence of this particular weapon in images of Indian warriors. While this is an amazing image of a Sikh warrior, the indication that he is wearing a 'khanjharli' is misleading as I cannot see such a weapon in the image (old eyes etc.).
Clearly he has a chilanum and a basket hilt sword of khanda form, but whatever is at his side does not reflect the lunette (often ivory) hilt of the khanjharli.
The area that would show the pommel may be a khanjhar, as these often had elaborately styled pommels.....but in this area of the image, there seem to be two surfaces in the area of the pommel.
I see why you are asking for a more reliable image of a 'khanjharli' in context, and that the identification with this photo of Sikh warrior suggesting that weapon seems misplaced. No small wonder with the 'name games' with these weapons and errors beginning with Egerton (1885).
Clearly the available resources we typically use do not have a khanjharli image in context with being worn, but possibly those with Indian art and miniatures might have something.
It seems the chilanum has interesting history produced originally in Vijayanagara and according to Pant (1980, p.179) evolved into the 'khanjharli' in late 17th c. with the curved arms of pommel becoming the single lunette.
From what I found also in Pant (p.180) the chilanum style dagger in Rajasthan had a knuckleguard, but retained the style overall otherwise.
Though not much help with the original question, it is interesting to look at just what a khanjharli is, and I would appreciate input on my notes as added from Pant.
|