A well travelled Bikaner Blade?

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd February 2008, 04:31 PM

Nidhin,

I don’t think the blade has been rehilted, and if it hasn’t, it is not a Bikaner blade, then it is a blade from the south, with a Bikaner armoury marking.

When you look at many of the weapons with this mark, they do not all origin from Bikaner, but they come from many different places – a lot of them from the south. There were, in the earlier days, many wars where whole armouries were emptied by the winner, and the weapons taken into the winners armoury – sometimes they were marked, sometimes not.

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd February 2008, 10:01 PM

Can it be true that only Wandoo an I are the only ones interested in commenting on this south Indian daggar? Or is it be course few knows about these daggers?
Which is it???

Rick · 23rd February 2008, 12:38 AM

Jens , so you are saying that at the very least this blade has at one time been part of the Bikaner Armory inventory although not necessarily forged there .

This hilting arrangement seems unwieldy to my untrained eye .

olikara · 23rd February 2008, 09:18 AM

Rick,

Yes, the pistol hilt may not be very user-friendly.

But it could be useful for ritual sacrifices. That is to say, not convenient for thrusts or cuts but rather for one sharp downward stroke?

Nidhin

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd February 2008, 12:46 PM

Rick,

The hilt is from south India, and as I don’t think the dagger has been rehilted, the blade must be too. In the Bikaner armoury, like in many other armouries there were a mix of weapons from a lot of other places, so I find it likely that the dagger was looted, either from the battle field or from an armoury.

Rick · 23rd February 2008, 04:50 PM

Thanks Nidhin, that sounds like a reasonable explanation for this piece.

Thank you Jens for the clarification on your post; that's what I thought you meant .

Rick

23rd February 2008, 09:18 AM	#4
olikara Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: India Posts: 101	Sacrificial Rick, Yes, the pistol hilt may not be very user-friendly. But it could be useful for ritual sacrifices. That is to say, not convenient for thrusts or cuts but rather for one sharp downward stroke? Nidhin

22nd February 2008, 04:31 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Nidhin, I don’t think the blade has been rehilted, and if it hasn’t, it is not a Bikaner blade, then it is a blade from the south, with a Bikaner armoury marking. When you look at many of the weapons with this mark, they do not all origin from Bikaner, but they come from many different places – a lot of them from the south. There were, in the earlier days, many wars where whole armouries were emptied by the winner, and the weapons taken into the winners armoury – sometimes they were marked, sometimes not.

22nd February 2008, 10:01 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Can it be true that only Wandoo an I are the only ones interested in commenting on this south Indian daggar? Or is it be course few knows about these daggers? Which is it???

23rd February 2008, 12:38 AM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Jens , so you are saying that at the very least this blade has at one time been part of the Bikaner Armory inventory although not necessarily forged there . This hilting arrangement seems unwieldy to my untrained eye .

23rd February 2008, 12:46 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Rick, The hilt is from south India, and as I don’t think the dagger has been rehilted, the blade must be too. In the Bikaner armoury, like in many other armouries there were a mix of weapons from a lot of other places, so I find it likely that the dagger was looted, either from the battle field or from an armoury.

23rd February 2008, 04:50 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Thanks Nidhin, that sounds like a reasonable explanation for this piece. Thank you Jens for the clarification on your post; that's what I thought you meant . Rick