Image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

Saracen · 18th September 2021, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahratt

May be. That is why the photo says "possibly khanjarli"

This does not change the question voiced in the title of the topic.

Don't worry. The topic is not so big yet that can forget the question in the topic title.
But the historical photo with the "Indian pseudoshashka" is more interesting than your question.
Good luck in finding an image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

mahratt · 18th September 2021, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saracen

Don't worry. The topic is not so big yet that can forget the question in the topic title.
But the historical photo with the "Indian pseudoshashka" is more interesting than your question.
Good luck in finding an image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

Thank you very much for your opinion on item in photo. But if you have nothing to say on the issue voiced in topic, please give others opportunity to speak.

ariel · 18th September 2021, 09:38 PM

When my kids were much, much younger, they thought I was the best Waldo finder:-)
But here I looked and looked , and for the life of me could not find a khanjarli.
I console myself that chillanum and khanjarli are essentially the same dagger only with different pommels and .... “Well, anyhow- it didn’t rain”.

ariel · 18th September 2021, 11:31 PM

Come to think of it, there is a very well described psychological phenomenon : we see what we are looking for, what we want to see.
Recall the famous dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius in the Act III, about a cloud resembling a camel, a weasel and a whale.
All of us are subject to such benign ( in the majority of cases) self delusions and enthusiastic collectors always looking for a Holy Grail are the victims of it more often than most.

Nothing of what I have said relates to the “ khanjarli” in question. Just some general musings.... Perhaps the only suggestion I might have is to re-phrase the title and add a question mark.

mahratt · 18th September 2021, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Come to think of it, there is a very well described psychological phenomenon : we see what we are looking for, what we want to see.
Recall the famous dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius in the Act III, about a cloud resembling a camel, a weasel and a whale.
All of us are subject to such benign ( in the majority of cases) self delusions and enthusiastic collectors always looking for a Holy Grail are the victims of it more often than most.

Nothing of what I have said relates to the “ khanjarli” in question. Just some general musings.... Perhaps the only suggestion I might have is to re-phrase the title and add a question mark.

Thank you very much for Your reasoning. Although, as you yourself have noticed, this reasoning has nothing to do with the topic... Too bad. However, I do not lose hope that some of the participants will be able to write something more concrete.

Jim McDougall · 19th September 2021, 04:25 AM

An interesting question, and quite honestly I had never realized the apparent absence of this particular weapon in images of Indian warriors. While this is an amazing image of a Sikh warrior, the indication that he is wearing a 'khanjharli' is misleading as I cannot see such a weapon in the image (old eyes etc.).
Clearly he has a chilanum and a basket hilt sword of khanda form, but whatever is at his side does not reflect the lunette (often ivory) hilt of the khanjharli.

The area that would show the pommel may be a khanjhar, as these often had elaborately styled pommels.....but in this area of the image, there seem to be two surfaces in the area of the pommel.

I see why you are asking for a more reliable image of a 'khanjharli' in context, and that the identification with this photo of Sikh warrior suggesting that weapon seems misplaced. No small wonder with the 'name games' with these weapons and errors beginning with Egerton (1885).

Clearly the available resources we typically use do not have a khanjharli image in context with being worn, but possibly those with Indian art and miniatures might have something.

It seems the chilanum has interesting history produced originally in Vijayanagara and according to Pant (1980, p.179) evolved into the 'khanjharli' in late 17th c. with the curved arms of pommel becoming the single lunette.

From what I found also in Pant (p.180) the chilanum style dagger in Rajasthan had a knuckleguard, but retained the style overall otherwise.

Though not much help with the original question, it is interesting to look at just what a khanjharli is, and I would appreciate input on my notes as added from Pant.

ariel · 19th September 2021, 05:45 AM

Jim,
Glad you could validate my impression: no khanjarli on the photo.
I suspect that what we see on this gentleman’s left thigh is some kind of shiny metal thingamajigg, and the only “ lunette”-like part that might have been mistaken by Mahratt for a khanjarli pommel is an empty space between the outcrops of metal. Optical illusion, so to say.

But let us play devil’s advocate: let us assume that this Sikh indeed is wearing a real khanjarli ( even though those were worn under the belt,nd not suspended as astutely noticed by Saracen).
What historical lesson can we derive from that? None.
This is a late 19 century photo made in a studio. First, trade in India at that time was fully developed and khanjarli from Odisha might have crawled to Kashmir. But that would be an equivalent of a single swallow that does not herald spring.
The studio location on the other hand is a significantly more potent argument against the genuinness of a khanjarli-armed Sikh. Professional photographers had examples of god only knows what kind of decorative things with which they staged and embellished images of their clients.
This was a very old practice. My favourite example is Rembrandt’s” Blinding of Samson”, where his eye is put our with a Balinese kris, and a Philistine guard holds a Sri Lankan spear.

A combination of self delusion, optical illusion and uncritical non-appreciation of the studio background ( alone or in combination ) led to this obviously mistaken interpretation of the image itself and its worth as a valid argument that Sikhs used khanjarlis.

A pity, but it could have happened to all of us. Just let’s remember this erroneous post and try to be more careful and critical in the future.

18th September 2021, 09:38 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	When my kids were much, much younger, they thought I was the best Waldo finder:-) But here I looked and looked , and for the life of me could not find a khanjarli. I console myself that chillanum and khanjarli are essentially the same dagger only with different pommels and .... “Well, anyhow- it didn’t rain”.

18th September 2021, 11:31 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Come to think of it, there is a very well described psychological phenomenon : we see what we are looking for, what we want to see. Recall the famous dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius in the Act III, about a cloud resembling a camel, a weasel and a whale. All of us are subject to such benign ( in the majority of cases) self delusions and enthusiastic collectors always looking for a Holy Grail are the victims of it more often than most. Nothing of what I have said relates to the “ khanjarli” in question. Just some general musings.... Perhaps the only suggestion I might have is to re-phrase the title and add a question mark.

19th September 2021, 04:25 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	An interesting question, and quite honestly I had never realized the apparent absence of this particular weapon in images of Indian warriors. While this is an amazing image of a Sikh warrior, the indication that he is wearing a 'khanjharli' is misleading as I cannot see such a weapon in the image (old eyes etc.). Clearly he has a chilanum and a basket hilt sword of khanda form, but whatever is at his side does not reflect the lunette (often ivory) hilt of the khanjharli. The area that would show the pommel may be a khanjhar, as these often had elaborately styled pommels.....but in this area of the image, there seem to be two surfaces in the area of the pommel. I see why you are asking for a more reliable image of a 'khanjharli' in context, and that the identification with this photo of Sikh warrior suggesting that weapon seems misplaced. No small wonder with the 'name games' with these weapons and errors beginning with Egerton (1885). Clearly the available resources we typically use do not have a khanjharli image in context with being worn, but possibly those with Indian art and miniatures might have something. It seems the chilanum has interesting history produced originally in Vijayanagara and according to Pant (1980, p.179) evolved into the 'khanjharli' in late 17th c. with the curved arms of pommel becoming the single lunette. From what I found also in Pant (p.180) the chilanum style dagger in Rajasthan had a knuckleguard, but retained the style overall otherwise. Though not much help with the original question, it is interesting to look at just what a khanjharli is, and I would appreciate input on my notes as added from Pant.

19th September 2021, 05:45 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, Glad you could validate my impression: no khanjarli on the photo. I suspect that what we see on this gentleman’s left thigh is some kind of shiny metal thingamajigg, and the only “ lunette”-like part that might have been mistaken by Mahratt for a khanjarli pommel is an empty space between the outcrops of metal. Optical illusion, so to say. But let us play devil’s advocate: let us assume that this Sikh indeed is wearing a real khanjarli ( even though those were worn under the belt,nd not suspended as astutely noticed by Saracen). What historical lesson can we derive from that? None. This is a late 19 century photo made in a studio. First, trade in India at that time was fully developed and khanjarli from Odisha might have crawled to Kashmir. But that would be an equivalent of a single swallow that does not herald spring. The studio location on the other hand is a significantly more potent argument against the genuinness of a khanjarli-armed Sikh. Professional photographers had examples of god only knows what kind of decorative things with which they staged and embellished images of their clients. This was a very old practice. My favourite example is Rembrandt’s” Blinding of Samson”, where his eye is put our with a Balinese kris, and a Philistine guard holds a Sri Lankan spear. A combination of self delusion, optical illusion and uncritical non-appreciation of the studio background ( alone or in combination ) led to this obviously mistaken interpretation of the image itself and its worth as a valid argument that Sikhs used khanjarlis. A pity, but it could have happened to all of us. Just let’s remember this erroneous post and try to be more careful and critical in the future.