Image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Come to think of it, there is a very well described psychological phenomenon : we see what we are looking for, what we want to see.
Recall the famous dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius in the Act III, about a cloud resembling a camel, a weasel and a whale.
All of us are subject to such benign ( in the majority of cases) self delusions and enthusiastic collectors always looking for a Holy Grail are the victims of it more often than most.

Nothing of what I have said relates to the “ khanjarli” in question. Just some general musings.... Perhaps the only suggestion I might have is to re-phrase the title and add a question mark.

Thank you very much for Your reasoning. Although, as you yourself have noticed, this reasoning has nothing to do with the topic... Too bad. However, I do not lose hope that some of the participants will be able to write something more concrete.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ariel]

Jim,
Glad you could validate my impression: no khanjarli on the photo.
I suspect that what we see on this gentleman’s left thigh is some kind of shiny metal thingamajigg, and the only “ lunette”-like part that might have been mistaken by Mahratt for a khanjarli pommel is an empty space between the outcrops of metal. Optical illusion, so to say.

But let us play devil’s advocate: let us assume that this Sikh indeed is wearing a real khanjarli ( even though those were worn under the belt,nd not suspended as astutely noticed by Saracen).
What historical lesson can we derive from that? None.
This is a late 19 century photo made in a studio. First, trade in India at that time was fully developed and khanjarli from Odisha might have crawled to Kashmir. But that would be an equivalent of a single swallow that does not herald spring.
The studio location on the other hand is a significantly more potent argument against the genuinness of a khanjarli-armed Sikh. Professional photographers had examples of god only knows what kind of decorative things with which they staged and embellished images of their clients.
This was a very old practice. My favourite example is Rembrandt’s” Blinding of Samson”, where his eye is put our with a Balinese kris, and a Philistine guard holds a Sri Lankan spear.

A combination of self delusion, optical illusion and uncritical non-appreciation of the studio background ( alone or in combination ) led to this obviously mistaken interpretation of the image itself and its worth as a valid argument that Sikhs used khanjarlis.

A pity, but it could have happened to all of us. Just let’s remember this erroneous post and try to be more careful and critical in the future.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Jim,
Glad you could validate my impression: no khanjarli on the photo.
I suspect that what we see on this gentleman’s left thigh is some kind of shiny metal thingamajigg, and the only “ lunette”-like part that might have been mistaken by Mahratt for a khanjarli pommel is an empty space between the outcrops of metal. Optical illusion, so to say.

But let us play devil’s advocate: let us assume that this Sikh indeed is wearing a real khanjarli ( even though those were worn under the belt,nd not suspended as astutely noticed by Saracen).
What historical lesson can we derive from that? None.
This is a late 19 century photo made in a studio. First, trade in India at that time was fully developed and khanjarli from Odisha might have crawled to Kashmir. But that would be an equivalent of a single swallow that does not herald spring.
The studio location on the other hand is a significantly more potent argument against the genuinness of a khanjarli-armed Sikh. Professional photographers had examples of god only knows what kind of decorative things with which they staged and embellished images of their clients.
This was a very old practice. My favourite example is Rembrandt’s” Blinding of Samson”, where his eye is put our with a Balinese kris, and a Philistine guard holds a Sri Lankan spear.

A combination of self delusion, optical illusion and uncritical non-appreciation of the studio background ( alone or in combination ) led to this obviously mistaken interpretation of the image itself and its worth as a valid argument that Sikhs used khanjarlis.

A pity, but it could have happened to all of us. Just let’s remember this erroneous post and try to be more careful and critical in the future.

Dear Ariel, carefully reread my first post on this topic.
I hope you understand the word "supposedly"? If you do not understand, I will explain. It means "presumably". And it is not a statement.
I have not written anywhere that the Sikhs wore the dagger of the khanjarli. And even less did he insist on this version. Don't fantasize.

I just asked the participants:
Does any of you know image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli?
If you don't know a picture like this, you don't have to write a lot of words. It is enough just to remain silent. No wonder they say that: Speech is silver, silence is golden...
By the way, for the moderators - I don't want to offend anyone with my words. If it looks rude, then my bad English is to blame.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by mahratt

...By the way, for the moderators - I don't want to offend anyone with my words. If it looks rude, then my bad English is to blame...

Is that so, mahratt ?

[Jim McDougall]

While the discussion has gotten a bit off course, I just wanted to note that the image of this Sikh warrior in the original post is fascinating. Despite the purpose of the image to illustrate the figure as 'supposedly' wearing a KHANJHARLI dagger, it is difficult not to be taken aside to the character of this Sikh.

The Nihang Sikhs were irregular squads of the Khalsa armies, so may have served in many regions, thus acquiring numerous weapon forms. While they had their traditional forms; the khanda, tulwar, kirpan and dagger...the dagger seems as if it might have been varied in form.

The khanjharli has a lunette pommel as noted in descriptions of the form, but the item on the warriors left hip does not seem to respond to that shape.
I think the name game always sends most in many directions and to have this 'supposedly' described as a khanjharli could derive from an uninitiated description in this 'carte de visite' photo from c.1865.

Just the same, I found this photo fascinating, so could not resist saying more on it, and hope the quest for a photo of an ACTUAL khanjharli being worn can be found.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Ariel, carefully reread my first post on this topic.
I hope you understand the word "supposedly"? If you do not understand, I will explain. It means "presumably". And it is not a statement.
I have not written anywhere that the Sikhs wore the dagger of the khanjarli. And even less did he insist on this version. Don't fantasize.

Thank yoy very much for explaining to me the meaning of “ supposedly” .
To “ presumably” one could add “ likely, purportedly, allegedly, apparently, seemingly, believably”
My problem is that all of them presume a chance of truth, i.e. the possibility of the actual presence of some event, Khanjarli in this case.

But no matter how hard I try, I cannot find even the slightest hint of its presence.
Perhaps in addition to the green circle you can outline the element you interpret as khanjarli.
That might be very helpful to all of us, myself included, to re-focus our views and even agree with you.

I am not fantasizing: I just don’t understand what are you talking about.

[Jim McDougall]

In the original post, Dima has used the word 'supposedly' to describe the presence of a khanjharli in the photo. This would suggest to me that he is not the one claiming the mysterious weapon in the photo (not the chilanum which is clearly visible) is a khanjharli. Who knows who might have suggested it is one of these.

As this is an 1860s carte de visite, these photo cards were all the rage in these times, and were taken either in studios, or more commonly by itinerant photographers who had with them selections of props including weapons.
In the abundant numbers of soldiers from the Civil War here, most are taken with the man holding a Colt M1851 revolver and a Bowie knife. The same weapons are probably in similarly posed photos of countless subjects.


The focus on the image here and whatever weapon he has at his side is moot, and what the objective is to find a warrior wearing a khanjharli which CAN BE SEEN AND RECOGNIZED
Fascinating lessons and interesting psychology though.

[Ian]

Guys,

I think that mahratt has clarified his statement regarding the "supposed" khanjharli dagger in the picture.

Jim's summing up is well stated, "The focus on the image here and whatever weapon he has at his side is moot, and what the objective is to find a warrior wearing a khanjharli which CAN BE SEEN AND RECOGNIZED ..."

Mahratt's question was quite simple. Simple question, simple task. So far, nobody has responded affirmatively to the question.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In the original post, Dima has used the word 'supposedly' to describe the presence of a khanjharli in the photo. This would suggest to me that he is not the one claiming the mysterious weapon in the photo (not the chilanum which is clearly visible) is a khanjharli. Who knows who might have suggested it is one of these.

As this is an 1860s carte de visite, these photo cards were all the rage in these times, and were taken either in studios, or more commonly by itinerant photographers who had with them selections of props including weapons.
In the abundant numbers of soldiers from the Civil War here, most are taken with the man holding a Colt M1851 revolver and a Bowie knife. The same weapons are probably in similarly posed photos of countless subjects.


The focus on the image here and whatever weapon he has at his side is moot, and what the objective is to find a warrior wearing a khanjharli which CAN BE SEEN AND RECOGNIZED
Fascinating lessons and interesting psychology though.

Thank you dear Jim. You perfectly explained what I wanted to say. I found it difficult to do this with my bad english