Image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.
 

Dear forum participants. Does any of you know image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

Photo of A Nihang bodyguard serving in the Nizam of Hyderabad's irregular Sikh army, 1865, which supposedly has a khanjarli dagger, I know

Hi Mahratt.

Great picture! I enlarged it a bit and adjusted the contrast to show the hilt of his dagger more clearly. In answer to your question, no I have not seen another picture with someone wearing a khanjarli.

Ian

.

Hi Ian.

Thanks anyway!

Mahratt, I thought these daggers with an iron handle like the warrior on the picture has are called "Chilanum" and Khanjarlis are looking different?

Hello, Gonzoadler. You are undoubtedly right. I marked in the picture

Wow!

Thank you for sharing this very rare photo!

Thank you Mahratt, the green marked piece seems indeed to be a Khanjarli.

Regards
Robin

A good photo. I really like the glance of this bodyguard).
But it piece very little resemblance to khanjarli.
In addition, I have never seen a khanjarli, which is worn on a suspension, and not behind a belt.


Could it be this?
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21429

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...1&d=1463410035

May be. That is why the photo says "possibly khanjarli"

This does not change the question voiced in the title of the topic.

Does indeed remind me more of mine, tho your example has more decorative grip rivets...
https://www.vikingsword.com/vb/data:...AASUVORK5CYII=

(cont.)...Than a khanjarli

Don't worry. The topic is not so big yet that can forget the question in the topic title.
But the historical photo with the "Indian pseudoshashka" is more interesting than your question.
Good luck in finding an image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

Thank you very much for your opinion on item in photo. But if you have nothing to say on the issue voiced in topic, please give others opportunity to speak.

When my kids were much, much younger, they thought I was the best Waldo finder:-)
But here I looked and looked , and for the life of me could not find a khanjarli.
I console myself that chillanum and khanjarli are essentially the same dagger only with different pommels and .... “Well, anyhow- it didn’t rain”.

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.

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.

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.

Is that so, mahratt ?

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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

Moving back to the khanjarli, I guess I too have not seen any clear pictures of anyone with a khanjarli. Wow.......

Not only photographs are missing, but also drawn images...

From the old Russian movie:
- Can you see the gofer?
- No
- Me neither. But he is somewhere there....

It’s extremely funny. You are a real comic. It would seem that I asked the forum participants an elementary question. But instead of answering, I enjoy humor and lengthy philosophical discourse.

Probably because weapons often serve as a symbol of belonging to a certain social group.
For example, I have also never come across an image of a janissary with an Ottoman court dagger.

Saracen,

That's an interesting thought. Any ideas as to which social or ethnic groups in India may have used the khanjarli? That could help point us in a certain direction to look for images.

If I may, not to detract from the banter, and following Ian in returning to objectivity, I think possibly this entire situation is partly 'name game' and partly a variant form from one to another.

In Pant (1980) he notes the 'KHANJARLI' (p.179) and that Egerton has wrongly termed several 'kanjarli' (502-505) and pictured with the lunette pommels as khanjhars.
In checking Egerton however, it is as noted, but 500,501 ARE described as Khanjharli, but not pictured.

In searching old posts here, I found one which had a chilanum grouping, but one had a lunette ivory pommel instead of the flared 'arms' type. With that I thought perhaps this is a variation.
As 'khanjharli' does not appear in the index or glossary in "Hindu Arms & Armor", Robert Elgood, 2004............I had not found this, but looking back at the chapter on Vijaranagaram there it was..........p.179:

Chilanum and khanjharli, with notes that the form probably evolved in Vijayanagara with Maratha conquests in Orissa. Orissa, known for elephants may have presented the ivory to be used to form the lunette style hilts. The lunette form pommel is seen in Deccani dagger types (also seen in Elgood, p.175).

The chilanum is typically regarded as a Maratha originated dagger (some suggest Nepal but that may be from diffusion northeast) . While Pant suggests Hindu origins, perhaps that is due to the Vijayanagara examples of chilanum.

Clearly terminology, influences and diffusion of styles add more confusion to the identification of weapon forms and the semantics in describing them.
The image of the Sikh warrior in the original post, may have had the term khanjarli used to describe what we know as a chilanum. ....due to the case noted.
If he was in the Deccan, where these daggers (chilanum) were well known, the term khanjarli may have inadvertantly been used to describe a chilanum, although not the variant 'khanjarli' >..a word known to the photographer or others captioning the photo.

As far as finding a warrior of cultural region wearing these recurved, lunette pommel daggers.....look to art work from Vijayanagara 17th century, and Marathas there.....specifically Orissa, also in Madras, c. 1758, (as per Zarkoe Selo cat. p.276) an example from Arkati.


I hope this helps.

Thanks Jim, for your very helpful and informative response.

No, Ian. It was an insight. Or, if you like, a hypothesis within the framework of a hypothetico-deductive model of research:), which is still waiting for its confirmation or refutation.
To do this, now everyone can attach their deduction to this hypothesis.

Thank you Ian.
I have found more toward the Vijayanagara connection from a query on this I relayed to a personal friend who is an established authority on Indian arms. He notes that finding artwork such as miniatures which might have such a depiction from the south is unlikely as this type of art was more peculiar to the north. Also the obscurity of this particular weapon compounds the problem.

He does however point out that the 'khanjarli' as a dagger was emplaced as a gift on two (perhaps more) occasions in the 19th c. by Maharajahs of Vijayanagara, in one case to Prince of Wales, the other to a British general. Presumably this may have been the source of Egerton's references, but have not looked further.
These events and Egerton may have been the sources for the references which claim the khanjarli is of Hindu origin and from Vijaranagara.

The age of these seems suggested from the 18th c. and that seems likely. That these were presented by Maharajahs to British figures in the 19th c simply reflects that these were weapons deemed worthy of such presentation even if much earlier examples.

As I have shown in my earlier post, the khanjarli appears to have been a variation of the Maratha chilanum with the ivory lunette as a pommel which came into regions of Orissa in their incursions. This is clearly shown in Elgoods" Hindu Arms and Ritual" as noted with an ivory lunette pommeled example among other 'chilanum'.

This again, is the reason the Sikh in the original post was 'supposed' to have a khanjarli, it referred to the chilanum clearly seen in his sash.

After this research, I was furnished the attached photo from another personal friend, which is a remarkable find to say the least! He indicates this image is from Pondicherry, a location in these regions on the eastern side of India, c. 1838.

Again the plate of Chilanum from Elgood. It would seem that the khanjarli developed into a slightly smaller weapon perhaps leading to the term with suffix 'li' which I think may be a diminutive of 'khanjhar' ?

Jim,
It is a khanjarli.
Not only the lunette, but also the grip are covered in ivory plates.

Dear Jim
Thanks so much for this awesome image!

Saracen's earlier comment about the khanjarli possibly being associated with a certain social group seems to be on target. Jim has pointed, through his friends' comments, to the presentation of khanjarli to distinguished foreigners, and the picture of the gentleman from Pondicherry indicates someone of wealth. So it appears the khanjarli might have been a prestigious item in its day. We seem to be generating more hypotheses to be tested.


Thanks to Jim and Saracen for their insightful ideas and information.

I thought I’d add a little related information, as this photo has just come up for auction with the following description:

“A Nihang bodyguard serving in the Nizam of Hyderabad's irregular Sikh army
India, Hyderabad, by William Willoughby Hooper (1837–1912) and George Western (1837–1907), circa 1865
albumen print, in mount
190 x 148 mm.
Footnotes:
Provenance
Formerly in the collection of M. & Mme Horvat.
Private UK collection.

Another print of this image appeared in the exhibition Empire, Faith and War: The Sikhs and World War One, Brunei Gallery, SOAS, London, July-September 2014; and that same print has been published in A. Singh Madra, P. Singh, Warrior Saints: Four Centuries of Sikh Military History, vol. 1, London 2013 (front cover); and in D. Toor, In Pursuit of Empire: Treasures from the Toor Collection of Sikh Art, London 2018, pp. 264-265.

The two photographs presented here (lots 325 and 326), taken in the princely state of Hyderabad in the Deccan, could arguably rank among the most mesmerising photographic portraits ever taken anywhere in the world. Although little by way of documentation comes down to us, it can be readily surmised that these warriors were members of the Sikh community located in Central India and connected with Takht Hazoor Sahib, the final resting place of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh.

Separated from the traditional Sikh heartlands of Punjab by hundreds of miles, the proud Sikhs of Hazoor Sahib steadfastly maintained ancient practices and manners that were largely lost to their northern compatriots, who had lost their fiercely independent nature after having come under British rule in the mid-19th century.

Among the Deccani Sikhs, one of the most beguiling characters to make an appearance is Maharaja Chandu Lal (1766–1845). For over four decades beginning in the first half of the 19th century, this diminutive bookkeeper, who rose to become virtual dictator of the Muslim-ruled state of Hyderabad, stands out as Takht Hazoor Sahib's single-most important patron many years before Maharaja Ranjit Singh took a keen interest in the Guru's Deccani legacy. Chandu Lal's interactions with Sikh warriors, who he employed in his personal bodyguard as well as irregular troops responsible for local policing and revenue collection, provides a fascinating insight into a little-known aspect of Sikh history.
In 1858, not long after Chandu Lal's death, one of the photographers of our work, William Hooper, arrived in India and joined the 7th Madras Cavalry just after the Sepoy Uprising was quelled. As a young lieutenant he became known as an enthusiastic and competent amateur photographer. In 1862, he was released from military duties to allow him to contribute to The People of India project, a monumental, eight-volume catalogue of ethnic, racial and caste types of the subcontinent. He was transferred to the 4th Cavalry, Saugor and Secunderabad, where he devoted himself for the next four years almost exclusively to acquiring and taking portraits of the peoples of the Central Provinces of India. These, like our portraits, were taken against a plain cloth backdrop and are distinctive for the intensity of the subjects' expression and the immediacy of their presence.
Hooper worked in collaboration with a Madras army veterinary surgeon, George Western, in the 1860s and together they achieved some commercial success with their firm Hooper and Western.
The present prints are two of only three known to have come onto the art market in the past three decades.


The intense stare of this fearsome and prodigiously armed Sikh of the Nihang ('Crocodile') order, coupled with his curled-up moustachios, gives him the singular air of energy and vigour characteristic of his warrior creed.

The unnamed warrior grips a double-edged khanda sword in his right hand, and in his left he holds a ball and chain flail (kamand-karora). Tucked in his cummerbund is an all-steel South Indian dagger (chillanum). His other weapons include a hide shield (dhal), a talwar sword and a pistol (tamacha), the butt of which is visible under his left arm. His peculiarly tied battle-turban is fortified with an array of razor-sharp steel quoits, miniature blades, crescents and steel chains.

Philip Meadows Taylor, a British officer who served in Hyderabad in the 1850s, gave the following description of the Akali-Nihangs ('Immortal Crocodiles'), presumably from his own personal experience: 'It is only in the native states, at Hyderabad in the Deccan, for instance, where the Akalees in all their pristine fierceness and defiance of order are to be met with; and their wild figures when in the company with bands of their own countrymen who serve as soldiers, are always very remarkable.' (See J. F. Watson & J. W. Kaye, The People of India: a Series of Photographic Illustrations, with Descriptive Letterpress, of the Races and Tribes of Hindustan, 8 vols., London 1868-75, vol. 4, p. 225.)

The bands of soldiers referred to were the Jama'iat-i-Sikhan ('Assemblage of Sikhs'), an irregular force of purely Sikh troops established at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the Nizam of Hyderabad's minister, Maharaja Chandu Lal. He had achieved the high office of deputy diwan (finance minister) in 1809 through the influence of the state's British resident. Well aware of his precarious position in a hostile court, this devotee of Guru Nanak wasted no time or expense in hiring a large personal bodyguard recruited from the thriving colony of Sikhs at Nanded. Chandu Lal was its single-most important patron.

Besides serving as his bodyguards, especially against the Arab and Rohilla mercenaries inhabiting the region, the Jama'iat-i-Sikhan collected revenue from uncooperative landlords and suppressed local rebellions. This tradition was continued by Chandu Lal's successors, all of whom occupied his political office for the remainder of the 19th Century.”

Thank you so much for this thorough and fascinating information. I know I appreciate this kind of detail for further research, and that you took the time to compile all of this and present it here.
This will be extremely helpful to anyone researching the Sikhs as well as these distinctly unique daggers.