Persian date opinion sought on khanjar

rand · 27th September 2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ward

Talking about Zand dynasty Fath Ali Shah was worse read up on him al ittle courtiers were afraid to go near him he had a habit of knocking their teeth out with his hiheel shoe if he was in a bad mood then they were supposed to thank him afterward.
Beautiful piece but looks later than Zand to me more like Qajar lot of European influence in the motifs.

Am in agreement with you about the dagger looking later than Zand Dynasty and that the European influence appears more of a 19th C. Qajar style, thats why am asking for opinions of what the date is on the handle.

At the same time am will to accept the date 1200 if that is what it is.

Thanks,
rand

ALEX · 28th September 2008, 12:18 AM

Rand,
I could be wrong, but I read 1120. I do not think the last right digit is zero, as it has a decorative dot in the center, just like other decorative circles, and appears slightly off center to be part of the date.
"120" is positioned in the center of the panel.
The theme (and dagger's condition) are not typical for mid Safavid period dagger (1708) though

Gavin Nugent · 28th September 2008, 12:27 AM

I don't have anything to offer up here other than I am looking for mr moustache in what volumes I have access to but I would like to say this is most interesting posting with one of the highest quality arms I have seen in a very long time. Thanks for posting.

Gav

rand · 28th September 2008, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

Rand,
I could be wrong, but I read 1120. I do not think the last right digit is zero, as it has a decorative dot in the center, just like other decorative circles, and appears slightly off center to be part of the date.
"120" is positioned in the center of the panel.
The theme (and dagger's condition) are not typical for mid Safavid period dagger (1708) though

Thank you for your opinion Alex,

I also agree with you that this dagger would not be correctly placed in 1708, the style of Persian art then just did not reflect the European influence as it did during the Qajar rule. Also agree that the flower/dot is a decorative motif and not a number. The shape under that flower/dot is what is in question, so the first two numbers would read 1-2-then zeros via absence of a number, or a six or a one.

rand

ALEX · 28th September 2008, 01:21 AM

As omitting a leading/first digit is common, and it's always the first digit, and always "1". Now, the rest three digits are in the center of a shape: "1", "2", and... "0", which also can be 5, as Arabic circle is "5" (the dot is "0"). It's hard to tell whether the dot or circle is depicted. I actually think it's a circle, hence 125, but it does not make much difference

, and I think that the shape under that circle is decoration, not a digit. Hope I make any sense, Rand:-)
Here is another example: at the very bottom, where the gold is washed away, the date reads 113, i.e. 1113 = 1701 (just one year short of 17th Century:-)

rand · 28th September 2008, 01:06 PM

Hi Alex,

Thank you for that explanation and the follow-up photo. When you say a number off center will not be part of a date, is that all the time?

Have added new close-up, hope it helps make easeir to see. It appears to be a diamond shape, then a one, then a two...... Am starting to agree that the reverse "C" shape to the two's right under the circular flower is part of the decoration and not a number.

rand

ward · 2nd October 2008, 07:03 AM

Closeup makes a big difference it reads 1265 = 1848
Big classical revival in Persia art at that time especally
in weapons making and also more Euro influence. You can see this on scrolls at top of hilt and also poses of people. Wouldnt find this much in earlier period like Zand

ALEX · 2nd October 2008, 10:46 AM

Yes, that closeup changes everything:-) It does look like 1265. Strange the digits are not aligned with 6 being "dropped". How common or uncommon this would be? Usually they're depicted in-line.
Good point Ward, 1848 does match the style.

28th September 2008, 12:27 AM	#3
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	Most Interesting I don't have anything to offer up here other than I am looking for mr moustache in what volumes I have access to but I would like to say this is most interesting posting with one of the highest quality arms I have seen in a very long time. Thanks for posting. Gav

28th September 2008, 01:21 AM	#5
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	As omitting a leading/first digit is common, and it's always the first digit, and always "1". Now, the rest three digits are in the center of a shape: "1", "2", and... "0", which also can be 5, as Arabic circle is "5" (the dot is "0"). It's hard to tell whether the dot or circle is depicted. I actually think it's a circle, hence 125, but it does not make much difference , and I think that the shape under that circle is decoration, not a digit. Hope I make any sense, Rand:-) Here is another example: at the very bottom, where the gold is washed away, the date reads 113, i.e. 1113 = 1701 (just one year short of 17th Century:-) Attached Images Last edited by ALEX; 28th September 2008 at 01:31 PM.

28th September 2008, 01:06 PM	#6
rand Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Virginia Posts: 539	Hi Alex, Thank you for that explanation and the follow-up photo. When you say a number off center will not be part of a date, is that all the time? Have added new close-up, hope it helps make easeir to see. It appears to be a diamond shape, then a one, then a two...... Am starting to agree that the reverse "C" shape to the two's right under the circular flower is part of the decoration and not a number. rand Attached Images Last edited by rand; 28th September 2008 at 02:41 PM.

28th September 2008, 12:18 AM	#2
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Rand, I could be wrong, but I read 1120. I do not think the last right digit is zero, as it has a decorative dot in the center, just like other decorative circles, and appears slightly off center to be part of the date. "120" is positioned in the center of the panel. The theme (and dagger's condition) are not typical for mid Safavid period dagger (1708) though

2nd October 2008, 07:03 AM	#7
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Closeup makes a big difference it reads 1265 = 1848 Big classical revival in Persia art at that time especally in weapons making and also more Euro influence. You can see this on scrolls at top of hilt and also poses of people. Wouldnt find this much in earlier period like Zand

2nd October 2008, 10:46 AM	#8
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Yes, that closeup changes everything:-) It does look like 1265. Strange the digits are not aligned with 6 being "dropped". How common or uncommon this would be? Usually they're depicted in-line. Good point Ward, 1848 does match the style.