A 16th ? century excavated small dagger for comment.

Cerjak · 11th December 2016, 05:13 PM

O.L. 20.5 cm ; blade L. 11.5 cm; blade width at hilt 1.7 cm
Quillon of square section.
Any comment on it would be welcome.
Best
Cerjak

Jim McDougall · 11th December 2016, 06:47 PM

Any other comments, provenance data, suggestion of source?
It would help to have some benchmark to begin. Even if auction or sale catalogs are often incorrect or inaccurate, sometimes they are pretty useful.

Cerjak · 11th December 2016, 07:08 PM

Hi Jim
Unfortunately I don't have any information about provenance I bought this dagger with one excavated sword from Luristan http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=19956.
Whithout pommel indentification will not be easy.
Best
Jean-Luc

Jim McDougall · 11th December 2016, 08:30 PM

Thank you Jean Luc , interesting pairing. While these two items may have been paired in offering, it does not necessarily mean they were from the same archaeological deposit unless so specified.
That eliminates corroboration with the Luristan sword, which would have been helpful as it is much more definitive in form.

This dagger is pretty nondescript, and as you say, without pommel which is a great identifying feature, it is a blade, guard and tang.
With the state of the metal and encrustation I think probably more scientific analysis is probably warranted.

You continue finding fascinating stuff!!

11th December 2016, 05:13 PM	#1
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	A 16th ? century excavated small dagger for comment. O.L. 20.5 cm ; blade L. 11.5 cm; blade width at hilt 1.7 cm Quillon of square section. Any comment on it would be welcome. Best Cerjak Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11th December 2016, 06:47 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Any other comments, provenance data, suggestion of source? It would help to have some benchmark to begin. Even if auction or sale catalogs are often incorrect or inaccurate, sometimes they are pretty useful.

11th December 2016, 07:08 PM	#3
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	Hi Jim Unfortunately I don't have any information about provenance I bought this dagger with one excavated sword from Luristan http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=19956. Whithout pommel indentification will not be easy. Best Jean-Luc

11th December 2016, 08:30 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Thank you Jean Luc , interesting pairing. While these two items may have been paired in offering, it does not necessarily mean they were from the same archaeological deposit unless so specified. That eliminates corroboration with the Luristan sword, which would have been helpful as it is much more definitive in form. This dagger is pretty nondescript, and as you say, without pommel which is a great identifying feature, it is a blade, guard and tang. With the state of the metal and encrustation I think probably more scientific analysis is probably warranted. You continue finding fascinating stuff!!