Ram's head khanjar for comment

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

"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.

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]

Originally Posted by estcrh

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]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

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.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

"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"?!


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]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

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"?!


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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.