kurd/IndoPersian ?

Tim Simmons · 12th September 2005, 08:54 PM

I have finally got a copy of Elgoods book Hindu Arms And Ritual if a triffle late, how very splendid it is. One thing it has brought to mind is what a good book Tirri published is, althought a little light on discussion, it does work as a general reference and gives most collectors the opportunity to say " I have one much better than that! " While on the subject of Elgood, now tell me the proportions and construction is " not right" Tim

Jens Nordlunde · 12th September 2005, 09:47 PM

Hi Tim,

Yes you are right ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’ is a fantastic book; remember to read the notes as well.

The two daggers you compare with are different, and with different length of blades, as you dagger is quite another type you can’t compare them. Maybe your dagger was made like it is now, and maybe the blade was a bit longer from the start, we will never know – but it is a nice dagger all the same.

B.I · 14th September 2005, 10:10 PM

i do agree with jens' theory. the two daggers in elgoods book are of a specific type and both recurve. the blade in tims dagger is different. the two deccani daggers are similar in shape, and have a very slight armour piercing tip (hardly at all), and not thickened to the extent of tims. also, the hilt is not southern in form. this was typical of rthis style, and not inherant in just these two examples.
i think it is a re-used blade, and could possible be the shortened katar that jens mentioned. its a little odd that the fullers just start, although this could be misleading.

Tim Simmons · 14th September 2005, 10:24 PM

I am aware that the pictures are of different daggers. I was trying to illustrate that knives and knife dimensions do not follow a strict rule book and would vary according to the competance of the many manufacturers and wealth of thier customers. Even in Elgoods book which is only highlighting some of the best production the variation of similar fullered knives is a good many. With these weapons to assume one type is the law is a little simplistic. We are not talking bayonets for a 303. Tim

B.I · 14th September 2005, 10:37 PM

i think both jens and i took your posting of these two daggers as a comparative point, of which it seems we were wrong.
i think that in indian arms, sometimes all we have is comparative specualtion and so we have to look for a symplistic way of 'categorising pieces, otherwise these discussion would be pretty short.
the point i was trying to make is that your dagger could have possibly made from an older katar (or something similar) as the blade from is one i have seen in curved katars. indian pieces do have a certain progressive form which, although loose, allows us to push specualtion a little further. this was the point robert was making in his book, when he pulled together a 'type' in order to emphasise that this could be done, instead of just re-showing the same old 'wallace collection' indian arms.
still not sure which type your dagger fits into, so maybe the way forward is to list the 'types' that it doesnt conform to.

Tim Simmons · 14th September 2005, 10:50 PM

I would also like to point out that the fullers on this dagger do not come from within the handle. The knife has a base which the bolster pieces are riveted to.It is outside of this on the blade that the fullers are forged and I can only assume the tang is similar to the dagger with the tang showing from Elgoods book. I am making a bit of a fuss but it is all to easy to brush things aside. Tim

B.I · 14th September 2005, 11:00 PM

tim, the advantage will always be yours as you have the piece in your hands. i can only go by the images you post, and give my opinion accordingly.
i try not to brush things aside and the core of my opinion is based on the fact that the two pieces (hilt and blade) do not seem to sit well together. i can only go by gut feeling and personal experience. if i held the dagger, my overall opinion could be completely different.
the tang on elgoods dagger is assumed to have been as thin due to the missing hilt being originally of stone (whether jade or possibly rock chrystal). this wasnt a common feature in these daggers.

12th September 2005, 08:54 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	I have finally got a copy of Elgoods book Hindu Arms And Ritual if a triffle late, how very splendid it is. One thing it has brought to mind is what a good book Tirri published is, althought a little light on discussion, it does work as a general reference and gives most collectors the opportunity to say " I have one much better than that! " While on the subject of Elgood, now tell me the proportions and construction is " not right" Tim Attached Images Last edited by Tim Simmons; 12th September 2005 at 09:07 PM.

12th September 2005, 09:47 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Tim, Yes you are right ‘Hindu Arms and Ritual’ is a fantastic book; remember to read the notes as well. The two daggers you compare with are different, and with different length of blades, as you dagger is quite another type you can’t compare them. Maybe your dagger was made like it is now, and maybe the blade was a bit longer from the start, we will never know – but it is a nice dagger all the same.

14th September 2005, 10:10 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i do agree with jens' theory. the two daggers in elgoods book are of a specific type and both recurve. the blade in tims dagger is different. the two deccani daggers are similar in shape, and have a very slight armour piercing tip (hardly at all), and not thickened to the extent of tims. also, the hilt is not southern in form. this was typical of rthis style, and not inherant in just these two examples. i think it is a re-used blade, and could possible be the shortened katar that jens mentioned. its a little odd that the fullers just start, although this could be misleading.

14th September 2005, 10:24 PM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	I am aware that the pictures are of different daggers. I was trying to illustrate that knives and knife dimensions do not follow a strict rule book and would vary according to the competance of the many manufacturers and wealth of thier customers. Even in Elgoods book which is only highlighting some of the best production the variation of similar fullered knives is a good many. With these weapons to assume one type is the law is a little simplistic. We are not talking bayonets for a 303. Tim

14th September 2005, 10:37 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i think both jens and i took your posting of these two daggers as a comparative point, of which it seems we were wrong. i think that in indian arms, sometimes all we have is comparative specualtion and so we have to look for a symplistic way of 'categorising pieces, otherwise these discussion would be pretty short. the point i was trying to make is that your dagger could have possibly made from an older katar (or something similar) as the blade from is one i have seen in curved katars. indian pieces do have a certain progressive form which, although loose, allows us to push specualtion a little further. this was the point robert was making in his book, when he pulled together a 'type' in order to emphasise that this could be done, instead of just re-showing the same old 'wallace collection' indian arms. still not sure which type your dagger fits into, so maybe the way forward is to list the 'types' that it doesnt conform to.

14th September 2005, 10:50 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,875	I would also like to point out that the fullers on this dagger do not come from within the handle. The knife has a base which the bolster pieces are riveted to.It is outside of this on the blade that the fullers are forged and I can only assume the tang is similar to the dagger with the tang showing from Elgoods book. I am making a bit of a fuss but it is all to easy to brush things aside. Tim

14th September 2005, 11:00 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	tim, the advantage will always be yours as you have the piece in your hands. i can only go by the images you post, and give my opinion accordingly. i try not to brush things aside and the core of my opinion is based on the fact that the two pieces (hilt and blade) do not seem to sit well together. i can only go by gut feeling and personal experience. if i held the dagger, my overall opinion could be completely different. the tang on elgoods dagger is assumed to have been as thin due to the missing hilt being originally of stone (whether jade or possibly rock chrystal). this wasnt a common feature in these daggers.