kurd/IndoPersian ?

B.I · 14th September 2005, 10:37 PM

i think both jens and i took your posting of these two daggers as a comparative point, of which it seems we were wrong.
i think that in indian arms, sometimes all we have is comparative specualtion and so we have to look for a symplistic way of 'categorising pieces, otherwise these discussion would be pretty short.
the point i was trying to make is that your dagger could have possibly made from an older katar (or something similar) as the blade from is one i have seen in curved katars. indian pieces do have a certain progressive form which, although loose, allows us to push specualtion a little further. this was the point robert was making in his book, when he pulled together a 'type' in order to emphasise that this could be done, instead of just re-showing the same old 'wallace collection' indian arms.
still not sure which type your dagger fits into, so maybe the way forward is to list the 'types' that it doesnt conform to.

Tim Simmons · 14th September 2005, 10:50 PM

I would also like to point out that the fullers on this dagger do not come from within the handle. The knife has a base which the bolster pieces are riveted to.It is outside of this on the blade that the fullers are forged and I can only assume the tang is similar to the dagger with the tang showing from Elgoods book. I am making a bit of a fuss but it is all to easy to brush things aside. Tim

B.I · 14th September 2005, 11:00 PM

tim, the advantage will always be yours as you have the piece in your hands. i can only go by the images you post, and give my opinion accordingly.
i try not to brush things aside and the core of my opinion is based on the fact that the two pieces (hilt and blade) do not seem to sit well together. i can only go by gut feeling and personal experience. if i held the dagger, my overall opinion could be completely different.
the tang on elgoods dagger is assumed to have been as thin due to the missing hilt being originally of stone (whether jade or possibly rock chrystal). this wasnt a common feature in these daggers.

Jens Nordlunde · 17th September 2005, 04:18 PM

Tim, why don’t you take the dagger to a vet?
No I am not joking, I mean it. Many vets have x-ray machines big enough to x-ray a dagger or a hilt, and they will be easier to convince to take a picture, than if you take it to a private hospital – cheaper too I am sure.
I am not convinced that it was made like that originally, but like BI says, you have the advantage as you have the dagger, and we only have photographs. Is it possible for you to take photos which can/will convince me?

14th September 2005, 10:37 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i think both jens and i took your posting of these two daggers as a comparative point, of which it seems we were wrong. i think that in indian arms, sometimes all we have is comparative specualtion and so we have to look for a symplistic way of 'categorising pieces, otherwise these discussion would be pretty short. the point i was trying to make is that your dagger could have possibly made from an older katar (or something similar) as the blade from is one i have seen in curved katars. indian pieces do have a certain progressive form which, although loose, allows us to push specualtion a little further. this was the point robert was making in his book, when he pulled together a 'type' in order to emphasise that this could be done, instead of just re-showing the same old 'wallace collection' indian arms. still not sure which type your dagger fits into, so maybe the way forward is to list the 'types' that it doesnt conform to.

14th September 2005, 10:50 PM	#2
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,890	I would also like to point out that the fullers on this dagger do not come from within the handle. The knife has a base which the bolster pieces are riveted to.It is outside of this on the blade that the fullers are forged and I can only assume the tang is similar to the dagger with the tang showing from Elgoods book. I am making a bit of a fuss but it is all to easy to brush things aside. Tim

14th September 2005, 11:00 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	tim, the advantage will always be yours as you have the piece in your hands. i can only go by the images you post, and give my opinion accordingly. i try not to brush things aside and the core of my opinion is based on the fact that the two pieces (hilt and blade) do not seem to sit well together. i can only go by gut feeling and personal experience. if i held the dagger, my overall opinion could be completely different. the tang on elgoods dagger is assumed to have been as thin due to the missing hilt being originally of stone (whether jade or possibly rock chrystal). this wasnt a common feature in these daggers.

17th September 2005, 04:18 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Tim, why don’t you take the dagger to a vet? No I am not joking, I mean it. Many vets have x-ray machines big enough to x-ray a dagger or a hilt, and they will be easier to convince to take a picture, than if you take it to a private hospital – cheaper too I am sure. I am not convinced that it was made like that originally, but like BI says, you have the advantage as you have the dagger, and we only have photographs. Is it possible for you to take photos which can/will convince me?