Your chillanum is from the 17th c.

[Kubur]

Just a short note:

I was very surprised to see in all the litterature, including recent books from the best experts that the chillanum are always dated from the 17 th c.

To me it smells like rubbish... Authors and experts are just repeting an "established" fact without any serious evidence than quoting each others...

Why not 16 th c.? And due tothe large number of these daggers 18th and 19th c. too... Do we have chillanum during the 18th and 19th c.?

Best,
Kubur

[ariel]

Plenty of them on E-Bay. All straight from India. All from 21-st century:-)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well researched Ariel:-).

Kubur, I have one from the 17th century and two from the 16th century. See A Passion for Indian Arms.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Well researched Ariel:-).

Kubur, I have one from the 17th century and two from the 16th century. See A Passion for Indian Arms.

Thank you
Well if I can see a 16th c. one with some descent explanations,I will buy it tomorrow!

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Just a short note:

I was very surprised to see in all the litterature, including recent books from the best experts that the chillanum are always dated from the 17 th c.

To me it smells like rubbish... Authors and experts are just repeting an "established" fact without any serious evidence than quoting each others...

Why not 16 th c.? And due tothe large number of these daggers 18th and 19th c. too... Do we have chillanum during the 18th and 19th c.?

Best,
Kubur

In its origin "cilanum" ("khapwa" is more correct) is old Indian dagger. Under the influence of the Mughals, Turks and Afghans in the 17th and 18th centuries it was ousted and replaced by khanjars and peshkabs (especially in 18th when stright Afghan peshkabz - karud began to spread).

[Jim McDougall]

In "Arts of the Muslim Knight", Furusiyya Art Foundation, 2008, there are a number of 'chilanum' included in the well described examples which seem to range from the 16th to well through the 17th c.

On p.143, in the introductory chapter on daggers, it is noted that "...chilanum hilts first appear in miniature paintings from the second half of the 16th century".
* ref cited, "Imperial Mughal Painting", Stuart Cary Welch, 1978, London, pl.4

In "Arts' (op.cit. p.207) a 'chilanum' is shown which is stated as closely related to one in the David Collection, which was the property of
Ali Adil Shah I (r. 1558-1580), and another which stylistically is suggested possibly earlier.
The 'Adil Shah' dagger is also illustrated in "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, pp.109-10, fig. 11, 1-4.

While it is true that it is well known that material in arms literature is often 'lifted' and perpetuated, the material in the references I have noted is well researched and from key collection resources. I am unclear on which references however declare that the 'chilanum' are always 17th c.

There appears to be a certain 'range' in the group of daggers known as chilanum, which include the 'anthromorphic' style hilts (which have what appear to be upheld arms). Could it be that this particular style hilt on chilanum is particular to 17th c.?

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

In its origin "cilanum" ("khapwa" is more correct) is old Indian dagger. Under the influence of the Mughals, Turks and Afghans in the 17th and 18th centuries it was ousted and replaced by khanjars and peshkabs (especially in 18th when stright Afghan peshkabz - karud began to spread).

Hi

Thank you it's a good point but if you look at Holstein, he said that new names were introduced but it doesnt mean new daggers (or not always)...

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In "Arts of the Muslim Knight", Furusiyya Art Foundation, 2008, there are a number of 'chilanum' included in the well described examples which seem to range from the 16th to well through the 17th c.

On p.143, in the introductory chapter on daggers, it is noted that "...chilanum hilts first appear in miniature paintings from the second half of the 16th century".
* ref cited, "Imperial Mughal Painting", Stuart Cary Welch, 1978, London, pl.4

In "Arts' (op.cit. p.207) a 'chilanum' is shown which is stated as closely related to one in the David Collection, which was the property of
Ali Adil Shah I (r. 1558-1580), and another which stylistically is suggested possibly earlier.
The 'Adil Shah' dagger is also illustrated in "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, pp.109-10, fig. 11, 1-4.

Hi Jim,

Ok look at
Hales, pp. 67-70; or Elgood, Jaipur, pp. 44-50; or Pinchot pp. 45-46

And it's not because a chillanum appears in a miniature that we can date all the chillanum from the 16th or 17th...

Best,
Kubur

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

There appears to be a certain 'range' in the group of daggers known as chilanum, which include the 'anthromorphic' style hilts (which have what appear to be upheld arms). Could it be that this particular style hilt on chilanum is particular to 17th c.?

I don't know if they are anthropomorphic, they look like some hilts from later khandjar and more related to flowers to me.
I think that is more related to the "all metal" aspect, some of them are heavily corroded and it reinforces this "antique " look...
But the 17th c. date is very suspicious to me, especialy when you look at the diversity of chillanum dated from the 17thc...

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

"...chilanum hilts first appear in miniature paintings from the second half of the 16th century".

because the miniature school itself appears in India in the second half of the 16th century

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi

Thank you it's a good point but if you look at Holstein, he said that new names were introduced but it doesnt mean new daggers (or not always)...

I think we uderstand the difference between Indian cilanum/khapwa and other Indo-Persian-Afghan daggers with other types of hilt and blade.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Chilanum are all over the age spectrum. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...num?uselang=de

Take the first example at the web page above. This one is 1500/1600 vintage.
At http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/L...0-details.aspx there is an 18th C example.

As a general note not limited to this weapon only~ There are many people who may not know what a Chilanum is... or that it is also called a Chilanam, where it is from or anything else about it.


Technology is roaring away at a pace...
Is there not a simple program that can do Forum a few favours like automatically list the top 5 threads at Forum Library concerning this or that weapon ? and place those at the beginning of every thread ?

Algorithyms can sort Library references in about a half a second...?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

because the miniature school itself appears in India in the second half of the 16th century

Good point Mercenary, I had not realized that this particular convention in art had not begun in India until then. So feasibly the dagger form may have existed earlier in degree.
You have noted a variation in term khapwa and chilanum. Where exactly do these terms come from? and are they terms actually in local dialects or contrived as we have seen in some other terms for weapon forms?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim,

Ok look at
Hales, pp. 67-70; or Elgood, Jaipur, pp. 44-50; or Pinchot pp. 45-46

And it's not because a chillanum appears in a miniature that we can date all the chillanum from the 16th or 17th...

Best,
Kubur

Hi Kubur,
I don't have these references at hand right now, but are you saying that these references state all chilanum are from 17th c. ?

I see what you mean on basing the date range of chilanum based on the miniatures. However I am under the impression that aligning the appearance of such a weapon in these art pieces with known figures such as reigning rulers who have historically placed detail is somewhat reliable.
It seems that those with notable knowledge and skill in assessment of these miniatures are typically quite accurate in references toward them.

These have seemed more reliable than for instance iconography in friezes in temples or other kinds of artwork where artistic license and/or certain atavism may be present.

[Jim McDougall]

One thing I would note at this point toward establishing date or period assessment on many forms of edged weaponry in the Indian subcontinent is that it is perhaps one of the most daunting spheres in which to do so.

The continued use traditionally of forms which were in use for many centuries has maintained perpetually with little change in styling or key elements. Most enabling in proper identification and classification is probably the decoration or motif in the hilt, as makers marks and related stamps are typically not placed in these weapons. Most cases of arsenal marks found on weapons are of course post production and only viable in dating in degree, and the numbers of arsenal marked examples is quite limited.

As has been noted, artistic or iconographic sources for establishing the terminus post quem for a weapon form is often questionable or easily compromised. The use of narrative accounts or records may often be defeated in degree by the inarticulate or collective terms used to describe or refer to a particular weapon, and dialectic, colloquial and vernacular terms may vary semantically in translations.

With most published material, authors tend to be either overly optimistic in setting captioned date for a described weapon, or overly cautious. Tulwars will characteristically (almost invariably) be listed as 19th century. Yet these weapons were well in use in the previous centuries.

It is within these existing conditions that we examine and try to prudently assess the date and period of these arms of India. While not 'impossible', it is only achievable in degree with the kind of scrutiny, investigation, analysis and constructive discussion we have always shared here.
We continue to learn, and together.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Good point Mercenary, I had not realized that this particular convention in art had not begun in India until then. So feasibly the dagger form may have existed earlier in degree.
You have noted a variation in term khapwa and chilanum. Where exactly do these terms come from? and are they terms actually in local dialects or contrived as we have seen in some other terms for weapon forms?

Many thanks. Before the Mughal paintings there were others: Jain, Deccan miniatures and of course wall paintings. But if we are talking about images of weapons, we need to take into account that only from the first half of the 16th century Indian miniatures become more objective.
"Khapwa" is old Indian term used for dagger and originated from "to kill", "to destroy". So far no one has found Indian term "chilanum" for dagger. There was verb "chilana" but not for dagger or weapons but apparently for household things: "to pare", "to shave", "to scrape", "to peel". I think we have deal with misunderstanding as in the case of "karud"

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

At http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/L...0-details.aspx there is an 18th C example.

A nice example but 6875 GBH!!! It is described as 18th century and "earlier"? Put together, perhaps an older hilt and a newer blade?

A CURVED STEEL DAGGER (CHILANUM)
NORTH INDIA, 18TH CENTURY AND EARLIER

A CURVED STEEL DAGGER (CHILANUM)
NORTH INDIA, 18TH CENTURY AND EARLIER
With a curved watered-steel double-edged blade with medial ridge and reinforced point, the 'T'-shaped hilt with a rectangular grip with rounded knop finial, curved knuckle-guard issuing from a stylised elephant mouth and terminating in a horse's head, the rainguard with a ram's head finial, blade and hilt contemporaneous but associated
13½in. (34cm.) long

[estcrh]

Here is one from Runjeet, described as early 17th century or even 16th century.

[Kubur]

and here is mine
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=clean

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

and here is mine
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=clean

It certainly looks old.