Image of an Indian warrior with a dagger khanjarli.

[Battara]

Moving back to the khanjarli, I guess I too have not seen any clear pictures of anyone with a khanjarli. Wow.......

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Battara

Moving back to the khanjarli, I guess I too have not seen any clear pictures of anyone with a khanjarli. Wow.......

Not only photographs are missing, but also drawn images...

[ariel]

From the old Russian movie:
- Can you see the gofer?
- No
- Me neither. But he is somewhere there....

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

From the old Russian movie:
- Can you see the gofer?
- No
- Me neither. But he is somewhere there....

It’s extremely funny. You are a real comic. It would seem that I asked the forum participants an elementary question. But instead of answering, I enjoy humor and lengthy philosophical discourse.

[Saracen]

Probably because weapons often serve as a symbol of belonging to a certain social group.
For example, I have also never come across an image of a janissary with an Ottoman court dagger.

[Ian]

Saracen,

That's an interesting thought. Any ideas as to which social or ethnic groups in India may have used the khanjarli? That could help point us in a certain direction to look for images.

[Jim McDougall]

If I may, not to detract from the banter, and following Ian in returning to objectivity, I think possibly this entire situation is partly 'name game' and partly a variant form from one to another.

In Pant (1980) he notes the 'KHANJARLI' (p.179) and that Egerton has wrongly termed several 'kanjarli' (502-505) and pictured with the lunette pommels as khanjhars.
In checking Egerton however, it is as noted, but 500,501 ARE described as Khanjharli, but not pictured.

In searching old posts here, I found one which had a chilanum grouping, but one had a lunette ivory pommel instead of the flared 'arms' type. With that I thought perhaps this is a variation.
As 'khanjharli' does not appear in the index or glossary in "Hindu Arms & Armor", Robert Elgood, 2004............I had not found this, but looking back at the chapter on Vijaranagaram there it was..........p.179:

Chilanum and khanjharli, with notes that the form probably evolved in Vijayanagara with Maratha conquests in Orissa. Orissa, known for elephants may have presented the ivory to be used to form the lunette style hilts. The lunette form pommel is seen in Deccani dagger types (also seen in Elgood, p.175).

The chilanum is typically regarded as a Maratha originated dagger (some suggest Nepal but that may be from diffusion northeast) . While Pant suggests Hindu origins, perhaps that is due to the Vijayanagara examples of chilanum.

Clearly terminology, influences and diffusion of styles add more confusion to the identification of weapon forms and the semantics in describing them.
The image of the Sikh warrior in the original post, may have had the term khanjarli used to describe what we know as a chilanum. ....due to the case noted.
If he was in the Deccan, where these daggers (chilanum) were well known, the term khanjarli may have inadvertantly been used to describe a chilanum, although not the variant 'khanjarli' >..a word known to the photographer or others captioning the photo.

As far as finding a warrior of cultural region wearing these recurved, lunette pommel daggers.....look to art work from Vijayanagara 17th century, and Marathas there.....specifically Orissa, also in Madras, c. 1758, (as per Zarkoe Selo cat. p.276) an example from Arkati.


I hope this helps.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Ian

Saracen,

That's an interesting thought. Any ideas as to which social or ethnic groups in India may have used the khanjarli? That could help point us in a certain direction to look for images.

No, Ian. It was an insight. Or, if you like, a hypothesis within the framework of a hypothetico-deductive model of research, which is still waiting for its confirmation or refutation.
To do this, now everyone can attach their deduction to this hypothesis.