Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
These additional photos quite clearly prove it is iron.
Maybe they consider it exceptional for 17th century. Maybe they consider it exceptional because thy didn't see another. However, I have seen a few and I don't think it was exceptional in the 19th century.
Moreover, you found yourself a couple of iron carved zoomorphic hilts.
I found others (at least a couple of the ones I indicated are iron).
Now how many more do you think are needed to officially say they were "common"?!
What relevance will it have as the next question might be "how common" or "define common"?!
I believe the essential point was to demonstrate the existence of such hilts as early as 17th century and whether there were only one hundred made or ten thousand is less relevant. |
I would not call carved iron zoomorphic hilted daggers common when there are only two images available besides the one being discussed here. I do not have the books you mentioned and have not seen the images they contain and I have not seen any images from Indian museums but still over several hundred years I would expect to see many more if they were that common. It may be that iron / steel was a much harder material to carve than stone and ivory and was just not a popular material for the people who would have made these types of hilts.