Omani Khanjar (Jambiya) for Comment.

Richard G · 21st January 2016, 08:27 PM

Kubur,
Never seen one like it!
The "kufic" style of the script and certain other features make me wonder if it is a european interpretation of a omani khanjar.
Can you tell us anything more about it?
Regards
Richard

Kubur · 22nd January 2016, 12:12 PM

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

Kubur · 22nd January 2016, 12:20 PM

I cant resist another cool boy...
This time SA, Mekka style...

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 22nd January 2016, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

Salaams Kubur, Is this a Russian or Indian masterpiece? Any ideas who was the maker / workshop? Clearly commissioned for a vip?... The style looks like a Al Busaidi with "on steroid" precious stones added. Occasionally I see lavish examples but I never saw such a piece .. The Ibaathi consider such adornment "over the top" ... but of course if it is a Royal Gift these things sometimes transcend that concept... The blade is hugely adorned and in Gold... again never seen before...

Met Exhibit. I found the item at http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/...N+DAGGER&pos=4 where it is described as Arabian...Jambiya...suggesting Oman not as the point of use or manufacture. It furthur indicates an out of Oman point of craftsmanship thus I look at Indian style especially in the lavish use of Turquoise possibly from La Dak famous for that stone.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Kubur · 22nd January 2016, 06:35 PM

Salaam Ibrahem,

Ok lets agree to disagree.
I have a great respect for your knowledge and passion for the arms of your country such as sayf, kattara and khanjar...
Nevertheless it's not because you don't know this type of khanjar that this khanjar is not from Oman!
Don't worry, a lot of members on this forum are like you...
It's maybe a khanjar produced in Oman but with the help of other craftmen.
India is a good track....but look at Persia/Iran, Ottoman too.
And its definitively 19th c.

Kind regards

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 23rd January 2016, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Salaam Ibrahem,

Ok lets agree to disagree.
I have a great respect for your knowledge and passion for the arms of your country such as sayf, kattara and khanjar...
Nevertheless it's not because you don't know this type of khanjar that this khanjar is not from Oman!
Don't worry, a lot of members on this forum are like you...
It's maybe a khanjar produced in Oman but with the help of other craftmen.
India is a good track....but look at Persia/Iran, Ottoman too.
And its definitively 19th c.

Kind regards

Im not sure what Im agreeing to disagree to

but I will anyway ...I can see part Omani in this very highly decorated Khanjar which I suspect is Indian ...I didn't list the other possibilities but as you say...any class workshop could be responsible... The Met didnt qualify it except to indicate 19th C ... Where made? I suggested La Dak as a possible. It is certainly top end of the jeweller workshop and way out of line for an Omani type...It must have been stripped right back and rebuilt. I have seen Russian work and can't rule that out. It remends me of the Faberge Egg !

Here I place some fine work ...by no means the jewelled form of the hybrid at the Met but showing what happens when a top Russian workshops gets hold of a project.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

grendolino · 27th January 2016, 10:09 PM

It is nice to see the khanjar from NY collection. I've seen two similar to it, though not so lavish, and i was interested where they are from.
The one on green was sold on auction site. The seller who i had asked directly could not give any details. But watch the fleur de lys...
The second is from Benaki Museum Athens and the picture was picked up on this forum. The museum is the serious one and deals with items from Greek Revolution so I think Russian (modern) trail we can abandon (not mention that Faberge worked in enamel and western style gems).
What do you think about them?

estcrh · 28th January 2016, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Met Exhibit. I found the item at http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/...N+DAGGER&pos=4 where it is described as Arabian...Jambiya...suggesting Oman not as the point of use or manufacture. It furthur indicates an out of Oman point of craftsmanship thus I look at Indian style especially in the lavish use of Turquoise possibly from La Dak famous for that stone.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Ibrahiim, do not just trust the Met Collection descriptions, many are wrong and seem to be decades old, possibly just copys of the description when donated. I have identified several less than accurate discriptions in their online arms and armor images.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 28th January 2016, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim, do not just trust the Met Collection descriptions, many are wrong and seem to be decades old, possibly just copys of the description when donated. I have identified several less than accurate discriptions in their online arms and armor images.

Salaams estcrh ~ Well I have to say that the Met does loom rather large in the business of trusted expertise and status... and looking at the contributor he also carries a certain degree of weight.

What we have here is some sort or degree of Omani Khanjar carcass worked over by an expert workshop specialising in gems etc and a degree of very up market expertise in this field. It would be interesting to source the workshops which have already been pointed to as being Persian, Indian, Ottoman ...possibly Russian or another European house?

Salaams grendolino, Agreed on the Russian influence ...Thanks.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Jim McDougall · 28th January 2016, 04:51 PM

While we have pretty much digressed from the khanjhar Harry posted, it has led to a fascinating discussion on the kinds of khanjhar that exist and in some degree are related if only loosely in styling.

Ibrahiim, your notes on these various khanjhars are as always intriguing, and reflect the years of tenacious research you have done on these forms, particularly as you are of course situated exactly in these Omani regions.

I agree with your comment on the veracity of Metropolitan Museum descriptions, which are typically remarkable in accuracy considering the notable figures who consult there and in their publications. I think often many assume that their publications fall into the general literature category of many auctions, museums and other catalogs in degree of errors. However knowing those who are typically involved in work by the Met, it is hard to imagine such errors slipping through.

Interesting suggestion as well concerning the lavish nature of the decoration on the turquoise studded example here, which does seem to point to either India and quite possibly Russia as noted. I would be inclined to think of Russia as the combined Arabian influence and presence in the northern regions of India, as well as the use of turquoise in Bukharen decoration (as suggested by Ariel) may have melded in presentation or diplomatic gift possibility. It is important to remember the presence of Russia in regions in Bukhara and now Afghanistan in the 19th century, and in my thinking it would not seem unlikely that a Khanjhar in this style and thus decorated might have been produced for diplomatic use.

The analogy of the Faberge egg is well placed, and anyone familiar with the fine arms from Tula in Russia will see the kinds of lavish decoration they used on presentation an diplomatically intended weapons . These seem to have also been produced in the forms of a number of other regions also .
It is

grendolino · 28th January 2016, 09:50 PM

As I see we have focused here on gems as the more strange part of the NY khanjar.
I have two points for consideration:
Maeby NY khanjar got its gems in another country than it was made? They seem to me to be over the filigree decoration.
The socond - are those three Omani or Arabian - we still didn't discuss the three of khanjars as a group as they all have congruent features and different from what we know as typical Saadi khanjar.

estcrh · 29th January 2016, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams estcrh ~ Well I have to say that the Met does loom rather large in the business of trusted expertise and status... and looking at the contributor he also carries a certain degree of weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree with your comment on the veracity of Metropolitan Museum descriptions, which are typically remarkable in accuracy considering the notable figures who consult there and in their publications. I think often many assume that their publications fall into the general literature category of many auctions, museums and other catalogs in degree of errors. However knowing those who are typically involved in work by the Met, it is hard to imagine such errors slipping through.

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.

Here is just one representitive example, this Persian char-aina cuirass was originally described for quite some time by the Met as being a 1700s North Indian cuirass, anyone with a bit of knowledge could see that it is actually a Persian char-aina cuirass, when I posted this on Pinterest a few months ago I questioned the mets description, expanded the description and added alternate names, you can see my recently made Pinterest post in the middle, now the Met has changed the description but they have spelled it wrong, you can see this is the following images.

It went from being a 17th century North Indian cuirass to being a 19th century Persian "chair-aina"...which is still not correct, the proper spelling is "char-aina".

estcrh · 29th January 2016, 01:22 AM

Back to Harrys jambiya, has anyone seen another example with similar brass work, I can not remember seeing one.

Kubur · 29th January 2016, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.
.

I agree with Estrech.
The descriptions on the MET website are just crap, most of them.
The book published recently is excellent, a sourcebook, by one of the best specialist, Alexander. As always the best specialists are not in the Museums!
Where curators are paid to sleep on their collections...

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 29th January 2016, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.

Here is just one representitive example, this Persian char-aina cuirass was originally described for quite some time by the Met as being a 1700s North Indian cuirass, anyone with a bit of knowledge could see that it is actually a Persian char-aina cuirass, when I posted this on Pinterest a few months ago I questioned the mets description, expanded the description and added alternate names, you can see my recently made Pinterest post in the middle, now the Met has changed the description but they have spelled it wrong, you can see this is the following images.

It went from being a 17th century North Indian cuirass to being a 19th century Persian "chair-aina"...which is still not correct, the proper spelling is "char-aina".

Salaams estcrh ... I note that there are several ways of describing in spelling the armour above...which by the way is an excellent picture for which you are thanked for posting. In fact the business of mirror armour is interesting in its own right from the Talismanic viewpoint.

Personally I avoid locking horns with research departments of internationally reknowned museums as my knowledge is not that great and suggestions that the Met. is in some way not up to the job seems just a little harsh to me.

On the other hand it may be true to some extent in provincial museums of dubious reknown but that is rather down to finances I suspect.

The description of the precious stone laden Khanjar which does seem to be based on the Omani Khanjar but likely executed in a foreign workshops which I suggest could be Russian...is not misleading since it states as much as most people would need to know and note it was dedicated by George C Stone...himself no slouch in the area of ethnographic weapons.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

estcrh · 28th January 2016, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

Both sides.

22nd January 2016, 12:20 PM	#3
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	I cant resist another cool boy... This time SA, Mekka style... Attached Images

27th January 2016, 10:09 PM	#7
grendolino Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 38	Another strangers for consideration It is nice to see the khanjar from NY collection. I've seen two similar to it, though not so lavish, and i was interested where they are from. The one on green was sold on auction site. The seller who i had asked directly could not give any details. But watch the fleur de lys... The second is from Benaki Museum Athens and the picture was picked up on this forum. The museum is the serious one and deals with items from Greek Revolution so I think Russian (modern) trail we can abandon (not mention that Faberge worked in enamel and western style gems). What do you think about them? Attached Images

29th January 2016, 01:22 AM	#13
estcrh Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: USA Posts: 1,492	Back to Harrys jambiya, has anyone seen another example with similar brass work, I can not remember seeing one. Attached Images

21st January 2016, 08:27 PM	#1
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 409	Kubur, Never seen one like it! The "kufic" style of the script and certain other features make me wonder if it is a european interpretation of a omani khanjar. Can you tell us anything more about it? Regards Richard

22nd January 2016, 12:12 PM	#2
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Hi Richard, It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c. Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY. I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published... Bets, Kubur

22nd January 2016, 06:35 PM	#5
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Salaam Ibrahem, Ok lets agree to disagree. I have a great respect for your knowledge and passion for the arms of your country such as sayf, kattara and khanjar... Nevertheless it's not because you don't know this type of khanjar that this khanjar is not from Oman! Don't worry, a lot of members on this forum are like you... It's maybe a khanjar produced in Oman but with the help of other craftmen. India is a good track....but look at Persia/Iran, Ottoman too. And its definitively 19th c. Kind regards

28th January 2016, 04:51 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	While we have pretty much digressed from the khanjhar Harry posted, it has led to a fascinating discussion on the kinds of khanjhar that exist and in some degree are related if only loosely in styling. Ibrahiim, your notes on these various khanjhars are as always intriguing, and reflect the years of tenacious research you have done on these forms, particularly as you are of course situated exactly in these Omani regions. I agree with your comment on the veracity of Metropolitan Museum descriptions, which are typically remarkable in accuracy considering the notable figures who consult there and in their publications. I think often many assume that their publications fall into the general literature category of many auctions, museums and other catalogs in degree of errors. However knowing those who are typically involved in work by the Met, it is hard to imagine such errors slipping through. Interesting suggestion as well concerning the lavish nature of the decoration on the turquoise studded example here, which does seem to point to either India and quite possibly Russia as noted. I would be inclined to think of Russia as the combined Arabian influence and presence in the northern regions of India, as well as the use of turquoise in Bukharen decoration (as suggested by Ariel) may have melded in presentation or diplomatic gift possibility. It is important to remember the presence of Russia in regions in Bukhara and now Afghanistan in the 19th century, and in my thinking it would not seem unlikely that a Khanjhar in this style and thus decorated might have been produced for diplomatic use. The analogy of the Faberge egg is well placed, and anyone familiar with the fine arms from Tula in Russia will see the kinds of lavish decoration they used on presentation an diplomatically intended weapons . These seem to have also been produced in the forms of a number of other regions also . It is

28th January 2016, 09:50 PM	#11
grendolino Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 38	As I see we have focused here on gems as the more strange part of the NY khanjar. I have two points for consideration: Maeby NY khanjar got its gems in another country than it was made? They seem to me to be over the filigree decoration. The socond - are those three Omani or Arabian - we still didn't discuss the three of khanjars as a group as they all have congruent features and different from what we know as typical Saadi khanjar.