![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
![]() Quote:
I hope you understand the word "supposedly"? If you do not understand, I will explain. It means "presumably". And it is not a statement. I have not written anywhere that the Sikhs wore the dagger of the khanjarli. And even less did he insist on this version. Don't fantasize. I just asked the participants: Does any of you know image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli? If you don't know a picture like this, you don't have to write a lot of words. It is enough just to remain silent. No wonder they say that: Speech is silver, silence is golden... By the way, for the moderators - I don't want to offend anyone with my words. If it looks rude, then my bad English is to blame. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,282
|
![]()
While the discussion has gotten a bit off course, I just wanted to note that the image of this Sikh warrior in the original post is fascinating. Despite the purpose of the image to illustrate the figure as 'supposedly' wearing a KHANJHARLI dagger, it is difficult not to be taken aside to the character of this Sikh.
The Nihang Sikhs were irregular squads of the Khalsa armies, so may have served in many regions, thus acquiring numerous weapon forms. While they had their traditional forms; the khanda, tulwar, kirpan and dagger...the dagger seems as if it might have been varied in form. The khanjharli has a lunette pommel as noted in descriptions of the form, but the item on the warriors left hip does not seem to respond to that shape. I think the name game always sends most in many directions and to have this 'supposedly' described as a khanjharli could derive from an uninitiated description in this 'carte de visite' photo from c.1865. Just the same, I found this photo fascinating, so could not resist saying more on it, and hope the quest for a photo of an ACTUAL khanjharli being worn can be found. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
To “ presumably” one could add “ likely, purportedly, allegedly, apparently, seemingly, believably” My problem is that all of them presume a chance of truth, i.e. the possibility of the actual presence of some event, Khanjarli in this case. But no matter how hard I try, I cannot find even the slightest hint of its presence. Perhaps in addition to the green circle you can outline the element you interpret as khanjarli. That might be very helpful to all of us, myself included, to re-focus our views and even agree with you. I am not fantasizing: I just don’t understand what are you talking about. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,282
|
![]()
In the original post, Dima has used the word 'supposedly' to describe the presence of a khanjharli in the photo. This would suggest to me that he is not the one claiming the mysterious weapon in the photo (not the chilanum which is clearly visible) is a khanjharli. Who knows who might have suggested it is one of these.
As this is an 1860s carte de visite, these photo cards were all the rage in these times, and were taken either in studios, or more commonly by itinerant photographers who had with them selections of props including weapons. In the abundant numbers of soldiers from the Civil War here, most are taken with the man holding a Colt M1851 revolver and a Bowie knife. The same weapons are probably in similarly posed photos of countless subjects. The focus on the image here and whatever weapon he has at his side is moot, and what the objective is to find a warrior wearing a khanjharli which CAN BE SEEN AND RECOGNIZED ![]() Fascinating lessons and interesting psychology though. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,398
|
![]()
Guys,
I think that mahratt has clarified his statement regarding the "supposed" khanjharli dagger in the picture. Jim's summing up is well stated, "The focus on the image here and whatever weapon he has at his side is moot, and what the objective is to find a warrior wearing a khanjharli which CAN BE SEEN AND RECOGNIZED ..." Mahratt's question was quite simple. Simple question, simple task. So far, nobody has responded affirmatively to the question. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,280
|
![]()
Moving back to the khanjarli, I guess I too have not seen any clear pictures of anyone with a khanjarli. Wow.......
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 1,042
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
From the old Russian movie:
- Can you see the gofer? - No - Me neither. But he is somewhere there.... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|