double axe indopersian for somment

[weapons 27]

length of the iron axe 24 cm, width 25 cm, thickness to the thicker 5 mm

the axe with the advanced 36 cm length
total 2 m length

can you tell me if it is an axe of parade, and old .I think that the handle is not original, was also long has its origin?

thank

[archer]

It's Likely Persian and from the Dervish. That would be my guess.

[A.alnakkas]

Doubt this one belonged to a dervish. Most if not all dervishes follow the Islamic concept of zuhd (to forsake wealth and extravagance) abit to the extreme.

My guess is that this is a ceremonial piece, maybe qajar

[Dom]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

maybe qajar

Ramadan Karim my Bro.
- qajar ?? may be, but I doubt, coze they was very common to have any form of humans, or animals,
with at least some even very brief, mentions in Arabic
nothing of all that, also, could be more Indian at my point of view

à +

Dom

ps/ have a nice "suhur"

[archer]

Here's a photo of Dervish double axes from Arms and Armor From Iran, by
Khorasani. They are of a higher quality being ornately engraved and more functionally constructed. Archer

[Dom]

Hi "archer" ... well identified
Lotfi thought was correct

à +

Dom

[A.alnakkas]

Ramadhan kareem Dom!

I am not sure about the attribution of gold decorated qajar axes to dervish (which actually means faqir or poor person). Maybe the qajar items are modeled after faqir/darwish items but certainly the decoration is out of place.

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with Lofti, it would be quite unseemly for a Darvish to be carrying such an ostentaciously appointed item. While this seems very much like a Qajar 'revival' type axe, would it not be equally possible for it to have been in Mughal court context? In any case, it seems that Haider mentioned that dual crescent heads were not used in battle, but were often used in court settings by guards (I do not have the reference handy).

On another possibility, could this be Bektashi ?, which was Darvish order within Ottoman sphere and closely associated with Janissaries.

[ariel]

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons. This one has a thin blade through and through.
My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by ariel

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons.

Except for all the fighting axes that aren't made that way, which still managed to be practical weapons, like the Dane axe, bardiche, bullova, Bronze age Vietnamese axes, etc. Large 2-handed axes, especially, tend to be thin-bladed.

Tirri has a whole page of thin-bladed axes described as "war axes" (pg 333), followed by a few more pages with more thin-bladed battle-axes.

Originally Posted by ariel

My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

Likely enough.

[weapons 27]

Iron axe is similar to that which is pictured on the book islamic weapons page 231
Thank you all for your comments has

weapons 27

[Timo Nieminen]

Pg 221? Yes, very much the same style. Except for the lack of the spike. Late 18th century, so early Qajar?

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

Whatever it is, it is not a fighting implement. Real fighting axes have heavy, triangle-configured, blades. Otherwise, they are totally useless as practical weapons. This one has a thin blade through and through.
My take: Qajar or even later, tourist item.

I'd suggest there are likely tourist ones out there but you can't dismiss the effectiveness of these items, they all have distal taper even in not very thick near the haft. In armour or not the purcussion is going to hurt or kill.

Orez Perski also shows numerous example of both thick and thin on pages 348-356 of Persian Arms and Armour.

Gav

[weapons 27]

all is in three party, iron axe is well a hatchet page 221 of islamic weapons!!!