Ancient, armed Indian from Kabul

[Rick]

I photoshopped the overall view for better clarity .

[ariel]

Many thanks. I guess the pic of the scabbard is beyond repair but it gives the idea.

[Andrew]

Thanks for posting that, Ariel!

I think, however, that the museum's attribution is dubious. Given the provenance that apparantly came with the knife, one can hardly blame the museum, but I've never seen such a knife reliably attributed to India.

Ariel, is it double edged?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Thanks for posting that, Ariel!

I think, however, that the museum's attribution is dubious. Given the provenance that apparantly came with the knife, one can hardly blame the museum, but I've never seen such a knife reliably attributed to India.

Ariel, is it double edged?

It is single edged.
As to the attribution, I guess the curators of this Armoury (an offshot of the London Tower) know a thing or two about the origins of their exponates and have a record to prove it.
I see no reason why the Rajastani origin is such an implausibility: after all, French copied the Nimcha , the Russians made splendid Yataghans, the Vietnamese swords were influenced by the Japanese etc, etc. People saw blades they liked and made copies with the local flavor.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by ariel

It is single edged.
As to the attribution, I guess the curators of this Armoury (an offshot of the London Tower) know a thing or two about the origins of their exponates and have a record to prove it.
I see no reason why the Rajastani origin is such an implausibility: after all, French copied the Nimcha , the Russians made splendid Yataghans, the Vietnamese swords were influenced by the Japanese etc, etc. People saw blades they liked and made copies with the local flavor.

I truly intended no disrespect for the Armoury. However, I think we can agree it is not uncommon for innacurate provenance to perpetuate innacurate descriptions and attributions, even by otherwise excellent institutions.

Yes, I concede this could be a Rajastani knife in a Burmese/Thai style. However, Occam's Razor suggests to me it is more likely just mis-identified.

Here are some similar knives from Oriental Arms' gallery:

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photo...00116/ph-0.jpg
http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photo...00115/ph-0.jpg

I think it much more likely that this form of knife, with its slightly recurved, khandjar-like blade is the result of influence flowing from India into SEA, rather than the reverse.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I truly intended no disrespect for the Armoury. However, I think we can agree it is not uncommon for innacurate provenance to perpetuate innacurate descriptions and attributions, even by otherwise excellent institutions.

Yes, I concede this could be a Rajastani knife in a Burmese/Thai style. However, Occam's Razor suggests to me it is more likely just mis-identified.

Here are some similar knives from Oriental Arms' gallery:

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photo...00116/ph-0.jpg
http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photo...00115/ph-0.jpg

I think it much more likely that this form of knife, with its slightly recurved, khandjar-like blade is the result of influence flowing from India into SEA, rather than the reverse.

It is not a matter of disrespect at all: museums err just like we do (hopefully less as they at least require cataloguing, unlike most of us, freelancing collectors).
I just hope they have valid provenance.
As to the direction of influence... of course it works both ways. My only point was that the Afghani warrior at the picture might have worn a Dha (or Dha-like sword) and it might not have been an artistic license.

[Andrew]

Here's an example of a dha similar to that depicted in Jens' illustration:

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/photo...01752/ph-1.jpg

Again, courtesy of Oriental Arms.

[B.I]

well spotted, ariel. it seems that i dont know the armouries anywhere as well as i thought, and that my trips there are spent looking in the wrong direction :-)
unfortunately i dont have a better image (or a worse one either) but it seems to give the original post a different outlook. maybe it was as first assumed, but your new evidence seems just as plausable. would the dha experts give their opinion. the armouries piece (i am assuming) is in no way typical of burma, just heavily influenced (? i'm guessing here). then, is the illustrated dha typical in form or possibly some sort of hybrid.
although relatively late in date, the great exhibition gave us a definate starting point in back-tracking. the only faults are assumption of course. the stands held collections as well as items for sale/examples of stock. if the description given at the time was on an older piece/antique, then this can only come under assumption of the knomledge known at the time. however, most of the pieces there were examples of stock and so we can normally bowl ahead.
attached is from the armouries and is an example of lahore armour. again, a description by a museum is in no way evidence, but these pieces were brought back by Login fron the sikh courts and so we can verify their origin, especially when compared with evidence from the great exhibition.

[B.I]

aqtai,
i just realised that the image you posted was the same as the one i just added. the V&A and armouries loan for special occasions, but other than that keep their collections seperate. mine was definately the armouries so am assuming that you may have made a mistake. either that, or your postcard showed a piece from the armouries, loaned for a special exhibition at the V&A.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by B.I

well spotted, ariel. it seems that i dont know the armouries anywhere as well as i thought, and that my trips there are spent looking in the wrong direction :-)
unfortunately i dont have a better image (or a worse one either) but it seems to give the original post a different outlook. maybe it was as first assumed, but your new evidence seems just as plausable. would the dha experts give their opinion. the armouries piece (i am assuming) is in no way typical of burma, just heavily influenced (? i'm guessing here). then, is the illustrated dha typical in form or possibly some sort of hybrid.
although relatively late in date, the great exhibition gave us a definate starting point in back-tracking. the only faults are assumption of course. the stands held collections as well as items for sale/examples of stock. if the description given at the time was on an older piece/antique, then this can only come under assumption of the knomledge known at the time. however, most of the pieces there were examples of stock and so we can normally bowl ahead.
attached is from the armouries and is an example of lahore armour. again, a description by a museum is in no way evidence, but these pieces were brought back by Login fron the sikh courts and so we can verify their origin, especially when compared with evidence from the great exhibition.

Hi Brian.

Actually, I think the Armory's knife is quite typical of the knives seen in Burma and Thailand. The fullered blade and scabbard fittings, in particular. The sole "odd" characteristic of the type is the horn handle which appears to be faceted. Normally, the handles of these knives are slightly bulbous or cylindrical, sometimes dependant on the material used.

The sword in Jens' photos really doesn't look like anything other than a long-handled Thai darb to me. The distal end of the handle (i.e. that portion visible above the subject's hand) is unusually slim, but I'm not discouraged by what is perhaps just artistic interpretation.

I do tend to be hasty in my observations, however. I'm interested to hear what the other "dha guys" think now.