The travels of a very important dagger

B.I · 16th March 2005, 01:24 PM

jens' recent 'meteoric' developed well, and progressed into a good study of meteoric iron and its use and importance.
i thought i would divert it a little and recap on this amazing dagger in a post of its own, more to avoid stopping the academic work being done in the original post.
this dagger now sits in the freer gallery at the smithsonian and it obviously holds an important place amongst the collection, and rightly so. it seems strange that a piece like this is not more commonly known, given its heritage and its mention in such a historical manuscript. to re-cap -

'it was ordered together with a dagger and two swords, to be made from the metal of a meteorite. accounts of this incident appear in jahangirs memoirs and also in the iqbal-nameh-i jahangiri. the armourer was ustad da'ud, described in the iqbal-nameh as 'well known in those days for the swords he made'. it is inscribed in gold persian nasta'liq on the spine of the blade:

'there fell in the time of jahangir shah from lightning-like precious piece.janhangir ibn akbar ordered to make from it two swords (shamshir), this knife (kard) and a dagger (khanjar). in the year 1030 (1621ad) in the year 16 (of jahangirs succession),146.'

the accession number at the smithsonian is - Purchase, F1955.27a-b and as i mentioned before, this alone can lead to additional information.
there is more to tell about its journey, although as far as i know this story hasnt been published. please excuse my brief journey into persian history, as it is not really my subject.

the qajar rulers route their history back to a turkamen decendence. although already established, the real patriarch and progenitor of the Qajar ruling house was Fath Ali Shah (attached image). his lineage still exists and at some point during the 1950s, the eldest son came to the united states to study. his mother gave him a family heirloom, and told him to sell it if he needed the money during his stay. this heirloom was the attached dagger, once owned by jahangir.
in more recent times, the younger brother visited the smithsonian, where he was shocked to see the family dagger. he did not know it had been removed from the family (how, i hear you ask!) but recalled peeling fruit with it as a child. he could also recite the inscription from memory. as the accession records show the date 1955, we can assume this is when they bought it from the elder brother.
this is known and accepted, but another interesting insight which came indirectly from the family, is that it was thought to have been owned also by shah abbas, who had possible recieved it as a gift from jahangir himself. this is a family tale, with no definate provenance, but it makes sense as jahangirs passion and exhaustive trade links with persia are well known.
interesting stuff!

Mare Rosu · 16th March 2005, 02:10 PM

B.I.

I do not know just how you come up with this truly amazing story!
You must have one large and intensive library.
You sir, are making history "come alive" and enjoyable.
I for one would just like to thank you for all you efforts and inputs you have made on this dagger.
It is as you say an amazing story.
What next?
Gene

Jens Nordlunde · 16th March 2005, 03:00 PM

B.I.

The kard is still as fantastic as when you showed it the first time, and should I comment on it, I would look like a clown waiting to be coloured

.
I will however do it anyway. You wrote on the other thread: ‘also, by pure speculation from an image, without holding the piece, the persian work on the hilt just reminds me of late 18thC work, and not of the period stated.’
The story you have just told, could be the reason for, why the hilt looks like it does.

Jens

B.I · 17th March 2005, 02:54 AM

hi gene,
my library is important to me and well used, but just one way of getting information, and not always the first port of call. there is much information that has never been written and held by those not known to be academic, and yet their knowledge surpasses those that are more widely known. i have a long list of questions in my head and try and ask them at the right time and the right place

i've been out for dinner for the last 2 nights with 2 different friends (one academic and one art dealer) and on both nights learnt something new and important (to me anyway

) and both partly concerned this dagger.
jens, there isnt much i can slip past you. yes i did state doubts about the hilt and it was something i was reluctant to mention again, at least until i could offer more than just speculation. a friend has mentioned this dagger in an article and he claimed the hilt and blade were en-suite after close examination. over dinner, i expressed my doubts and in doing so instilled doubts with him. he admitted the slight possibility of it as a theory, but claimed to have not noticed it at the time (but he wasnt looking for this directly). as you say, the hilt could have been fitted after jahangirs ownership, but this can only be speculation. i still havent finished the article due to work commitments, but i got the impression a direct persian link was being reinforced, not just in this dagger, but in jahangirs taste in general. he bought many pieces from persia, importing them himself through trade routes in trade centres such as gujerat (correct me if i'm wrong as you have probably read the article) this would make sense i suppose, as the hilt is distinctly persian although it is claimed by jahangir the blade was forged in india.
my dinner tonight offered a different slant. my guest (well, actually he was paying

) has a vast knowledge of islamic history that bounds confidently across all the regions covered by the culture. he is well established as an 'expert' (but humbly refuses this role) and there are not many books written on islamic art over the last 20 years that do not thank him gratefully in their forward. he has not seen the dagger but is fully aware of it, and was comfortable with the age of the decoration. interestingly, he claimed it was indian! i argued my case, and he returned it with a history lesson which i had to accept, although my doubts will remain until i one day see the dagger myself, or hear a convincing report from someone that examined it. he claimed that jahangirs taste was always persian, as were many of the moghul courts. in this, he had persian artisans, and indian artisans that worked in a pure persian style. not only did they import pieces from persia to india, but the safavid courts imported persian pieces from india, made by indian artisans which were well known as finer craftsmen.
this statement alone will shake many, and i did argue the commercial aspect of persian art over indian, and this, i had to admit was a weak arguement. i collect indian for a reason, in that i think it is of higher quality than persian, or at least more to my taste. i always thought the commercial world disagreed, but as i was corrected, it definately does not. the persian pieces that are much sought after are the showy blades and fine late metalwork. these are meaningless, when standing next to an important piece of indian art. the reason that the world reveres persian artisans is that the good indian work doesnt exist in the sale rooms. when a piece does appear, the collecting world goes absolutely crazy. if you forget the moser pieces, which were pure decoration and go earlier, this becomes apparant. indian craftsman have always been revered, but only during this early period of which most are unaware.
interesting stuff and i hope others will give there opinion on this as i'm sure it can be taken further. my knowledge of persian art and history is slight at best.
after two dinners and many discussions, of which this dagger was just one i wasnt left with much more physical information to contribute. i still have my doubts, but now they are a little more uniform and when i one day see this piece, i will be looking at it with different eyes.

food was good though with no clowns in sight!

Andrew · 17th March 2005, 05:16 AM

Fascinating story, Brian. Thanks!

I've been tantalized by beautiful Indian and Persian weapons for some time now. Some of the pieces currently residing in the Nordlunde Collection are awesome.

One question. Your preference for Indian weapons is clear. What's your opinion on Indian wootz when compared to Persian? Some of the most breath-taking wootz blades I've ever seen are Persian.

B.I · 17th March 2005, 07:50 AM

hi andrew,
my taste has always been indian, and although i can appreciate persian watering and am in awe of the delicacies of the pattern, i have always found them a little cold when compared to the more earthy, personal feeling i get from indian. i am a huge fan of indian 'open' watering which i hold in higher esteem that the manipulated persian pattern, or the traditional indian 'tight' wootz. its all personal taste at the end of the day. the kitchener collection held many persian blades, all with a fabulous dark (almost black) persian watering that you have to accept as the finest of their kind.
also, with my last speculative offering, how do you know what you see as persian blades are actually persian? i have good indian swords with a ricassos fitted on to what i always assumed was a good persian blade. but as the complete piece was made and fitted in india, why not assume it is pure indian but made to suit the persian taste of the time.
i dont know, but there are many questions without answers and i would hope that with enough digging, answers may yield one day.

andrew, i have sent you an email.

16th March 2005, 01:24 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	The travels of a very important dagger jens' recent 'meteoric' developed well, and progressed into a good study of meteoric iron and its use and importance. i thought i would divert it a little and recap on this amazing dagger in a post of its own, more to avoid stopping the academic work being done in the original post. this dagger now sits in the freer gallery at the smithsonian and it obviously holds an important place amongst the collection, and rightly so. it seems strange that a piece like this is not more commonly known, given its heritage and its mention in such a historical manuscript. to re-cap - 'it was ordered together with a dagger and two swords, to be made from the metal of a meteorite. accounts of this incident appear in jahangirs memoirs and also in the iqbal-nameh-i jahangiri. the armourer was ustad da'ud, described in the iqbal-nameh as 'well known in those days for the swords he made'. it is inscribed in gold persian nasta'liq on the spine of the blade: 'there fell in the time of jahangir shah from lightning-like precious piece.janhangir ibn akbar ordered to make from it two swords (shamshir), this knife (kard) and a dagger (khanjar). in the year 1030 (1621ad) in the year 16 (of jahangirs succession),146.' the accession number at the smithsonian is - Purchase, F1955.27a-b and as i mentioned before, this alone can lead to additional information. there is more to tell about its journey, although as far as i know this story hasnt been published. please excuse my brief journey into persian history, as it is not really my subject. the qajar rulers route their history back to a turkamen decendence. although already established, the real patriarch and progenitor of the Qajar ruling house was Fath Ali Shah (attached image). his lineage still exists and at some point during the 1950s, the eldest son came to the united states to study. his mother gave him a family heirloom, and told him to sell it if he needed the money during his stay. this heirloom was the attached dagger, once owned by jahangir. in more recent times, the younger brother visited the smithsonian, where he was shocked to see the family dagger. he did not know it had been removed from the family (how, i hear you ask!) but recalled peeling fruit with it as a child. he could also recite the inscription from memory. as the accession records show the date 1955, we can assume this is when they bought it from the elder brother. this is known and accepted, but another interesting insight which came indirectly from the family, is that it was thought to have been owned also by shah abbas, who had possible recieved it as a gift from jahangir himself. this is a family tale, with no definate provenance, but it makes sense as jahangirs passion and exhaustive trade links with persia are well known. interesting stuff! Attached Images Last edited by B.I; 16th March 2005 at 01:52 PM.

16th March 2005, 02:10 PM	#2
Mare Rosu Deceased Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: USA, DEEP SOUTH, GEORGIA, Y'all hear? Posts: 121	Truly amazing! B.I. I do not know just how you come up with this truly amazing story! You must have one large and intensive library. You sir, are making history "come alive" and enjoyable. I for one would just like to thank you for all you efforts and inputs you have made on this dagger. It is as you say an amazing story. What next? Gene

17th March 2005, 07:50 AM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi andrew, my taste has always been indian, and although i can appreciate persian watering and am in awe of the delicacies of the pattern, i have always found them a little cold when compared to the more earthy, personal feeling i get from indian. i am a huge fan of indian 'open' watering which i hold in higher esteem that the manipulated persian pattern, or the traditional indian 'tight' wootz. its all personal taste at the end of the day. the kitchener collection held many persian blades, all with a fabulous dark (almost black) persian watering that you have to accept as the finest of their kind. also, with my last speculative offering, how do you know what you see as persian blades are actually persian? i have good indian swords with a ricassos fitted on to what i always assumed was a good persian blade. but as the complete piece was made and fitted in india, why not assume it is pure indian but made to suit the persian taste of the time. i dont know, but there are many questions without answers and i would hope that with enough digging, answers may yield one day. andrew, i have sent you an email. Last edited by B.I; 17th March 2005 at 09:18 AM.

16th March 2005, 03:00 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	B.I. The kard is still as fantastic as when you showed it the first time, and should I comment on it, I would look like a clown waiting to be coloured . I will however do it anyway. You wrote on the other thread: ‘also, by pure speculation from an image, without holding the piece, the persian work on the hilt just reminds me of late 18thC work, and not of the period stated.’ The story you have just told, could be the reason for, why the hilt looks like it does. Jens

17th March 2005, 02:54 AM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi gene, my library is important to me and well used, but just one way of getting information, and not always the first port of call. there is much information that has never been written and held by those not known to be academic, and yet their knowledge surpasses those that are more widely known. i have a long list of questions in my head and try and ask them at the right time and the right place i've been out for dinner for the last 2 nights with 2 different friends (one academic and one art dealer) and on both nights learnt something new and important (to me anyway ) and both partly concerned this dagger. jens, there isnt much i can slip past you. yes i did state doubts about the hilt and it was something i was reluctant to mention again, at least until i could offer more than just speculation. a friend has mentioned this dagger in an article and he claimed the hilt and blade were en-suite after close examination. over dinner, i expressed my doubts and in doing so instilled doubts with him. he admitted the slight possibility of it as a theory, but claimed to have not noticed it at the time (but he wasnt looking for this directly). as you say, the hilt could have been fitted after jahangirs ownership, but this can only be speculation. i still havent finished the article due to work commitments, but i got the impression a direct persian link was being reinforced, not just in this dagger, but in jahangirs taste in general. he bought many pieces from persia, importing them himself through trade routes in trade centres such as gujerat (correct me if i'm wrong as you have probably read the article) this would make sense i suppose, as the hilt is distinctly persian although it is claimed by jahangir the blade was forged in india. my dinner tonight offered a different slant. my guest (well, actually he was paying ) has a vast knowledge of islamic history that bounds confidently across all the regions covered by the culture. he is well established as an 'expert' (but humbly refuses this role) and there are not many books written on islamic art over the last 20 years that do not thank him gratefully in their forward. he has not seen the dagger but is fully aware of it, and was comfortable with the age of the decoration. interestingly, he claimed it was indian! i argued my case, and he returned it with a history lesson which i had to accept, although my doubts will remain until i one day see the dagger myself, or hear a convincing report from someone that examined it. he claimed that jahangirs taste was always persian, as were many of the moghul courts. in this, he had persian artisans, and indian artisans that worked in a pure persian style. not only did they import pieces from persia to india, but the safavid courts imported persian pieces from india, made by indian artisans which were well known as finer craftsmen. this statement alone will shake many, and i did argue the commercial aspect of persian art over indian, and this, i had to admit was a weak arguement. i collect indian for a reason, in that i think it is of higher quality than persian, or at least more to my taste. i always thought the commercial world disagreed, but as i was corrected, it definately does not. the persian pieces that are much sought after are the showy blades and fine late metalwork. these are meaningless, when standing next to an important piece of indian art. the reason that the world reveres persian artisans is that the good indian work doesnt exist in the sale rooms. when a piece does appear, the collecting world goes absolutely crazy. if you forget the moser pieces, which were pure decoration and go earlier, this becomes apparant. indian craftsman have always been revered, but only during this early period of which most are unaware. interesting stuff and i hope others will give there opinion on this as i'm sure it can be taken further. my knowledge of persian art and history is slight at best. after two dinners and many discussions, of which this dagger was just one i wasnt left with much more physical information to contribute. i still have my doubts, but now they are a little more uniform and when i one day see this piece, i will be looking at it with different eyes. food was good though with no clowns in sight!

17th March 2005, 05:16 AM	#5
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Fascinating story, Brian. Thanks! I've been tantalized by beautiful Indian and Persian weapons for some time now. Some of the pieces currently residing in the Nordlunde Collection are awesome. One question. Your preference for Indian weapons is clear. What's your opinion on Indian wootz when compared to Persian? Some of the most breath-taking wootz blades I've ever seen are Persian.