Omani Khanjar (Jambiya) for Comment.

[harrywagner]

I like this one. The embossed brass is nothing to write home about, but the blade is nice. I think it is wootz. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about this. Can anyone help with a translation? TIA!

Harry

[Michael Blalock]

That is the Shahada. There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by Michael Blalock

That is the Shahada. There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.

Many thanks!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

This is not an Omani style... I suspect Saudia??

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

This is not an Omani style... I suspect Saudia??

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Thanks Ibrahim. Oman was just a guess based on the similarities it has with the Omani 4-ring Khanjars.

[Kubur]

I would say Indian with Omani influences
I like very much the blade!

[kahnjar1]

I agree with KUBUR in as far as it probably being of Indian manufacture. The shape IMHO is more like Saudi. Likely for tourist market but the blade is nice.

[Kubur]

a last one 19th c.

[harrywagner]

Originally Posted by Kubur

a last one 19th c.

That is just beautiful! Thanks for sharing!

[ariel]

The generous use of turquoise reminds me of Elgood's comment in his book on Aravian weapons about Bukharan jewellers settling and working there.

[Richard G]

Kubur,
Never seen one like it!
The "kufic" style of the script and certain other features make me wonder if it is a european interpretation of a omani khanjar.
Can you tell us anything more about it?
Regards
Richard

[Kubur]

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

[Kubur]

I cant resist another cool boy...
This time SA, Mekka style...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

Salaams Kubur, Is this a Russian or Indian masterpiece? Any ideas who was the maker / workshop? Clearly commissioned for a vip?... The style looks like a Al Busaidi with "on steroid" precious stones added. Occasionally I see lavish examples but I never saw such a piece .. The Ibaathi consider such adornment "over the top" ... but of course if it is a Royal Gift these things sometimes transcend that concept... The blade is hugely adorned and in Gold... again never seen before...


Met Exhibit. I found the item at http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/...N+DAGGER&pos=4 where it is described as Arabian...Jambiya...suggesting Oman not as the point of use or manufacture. It furthur indicates an out of Oman point of craftsmanship thus I look at Indian style especially in the lavish use of Turquoise possibly from La Dak famous for that stone.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Kubur]

Salaam Ibrahem,

Ok lets agree to disagree.
I have a great respect for your knowledge and passion for the arms of your country such as sayf, kattara and khanjar...
Nevertheless it's not because you don't know this type of khanjar that this khanjar is not from Oman!
Don't worry, a lot of members on this forum are like you...
It's maybe a khanjar produced in Oman but with the help of other craftmen.
India is a good track....but look at Persia/Iran, Ottoman too.
And its definitively 19th c.

Kind regards

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Salaam Ibrahem,

Ok lets agree to disagree.
I have a great respect for your knowledge and passion for the arms of your country such as sayf, kattara and khanjar...
Nevertheless it's not because you don't know this type of khanjar that this khanjar is not from Oman!
Don't worry, a lot of members on this forum are like you...
It's maybe a khanjar produced in Oman but with the help of other craftmen.
India is a good track....but look at Persia/Iran, Ottoman too.
And its definitively 19th c.

Kind regards

Im not sure what Im agreeing to disagree to but I will anyway ...I can see part Omani in this very highly decorated Khanjar which I suspect is Indian ...I didn't list the other possibilities but as you say...any class workshop could be responsible... The Met didnt qualify it except to indicate 19th C ... Where made? I suggested La Dak as a possible. It is certainly top end of the jeweller workshop and way out of line for an Omani type...It must have been stripped right back and rebuilt. I have seen Russian work and can't rule that out. It remends me of the Faberge Egg !

Here I place some fine work ...by no means the jewelled form of the hybrid at the Met but showing what happens when a top Russian workshops gets hold of a project.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[grendolino]

It is nice to see the khanjar from NY collection. I've seen two similar to it, though not so lavish, and i was interested where they are from.
The one on green was sold on auction site. The seller who i had asked directly could not give any details. But watch the fleur de lys...
The second is from Benaki Museum Athens and the picture was picked up on this forum. The museum is the serious one and deals with items from Greek Revolution so I think Russian (modern) trail we can abandon (not mention that Faberge worked in enamel and western style gems).
What do you think about them?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Met Exhibit. I found the item at http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/...N+DAGGER&pos=4 where it is described as Arabian...Jambiya...suggesting Oman not as the point of use or manufacture. It furthur indicates an out of Oman point of craftsmanship thus I look at Indian style especially in the lavish use of Turquoise possibly from La Dak famous for that stone.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Ibrahiim, do not just trust the Met Collection descriptions, many are wrong and seem to be decades old, possibly just copys of the description when donated. I have identified several less than accurate discriptions in their online arms and armor images.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Richard,

It's a 'pure' Omani khanjar from the 19th c.
Collected during the 19th c. and now at the MET in NY.
I hope that this piece will be in the new catalog that they just published...

Bets,
Kubur

Both sides.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim, do not just trust the Met Collection descriptions, many are wrong and seem to be decades old, possibly just copys of the description when donated. I have identified several less than accurate discriptions in their online arms and armor images.

Salaams estcrh ~ Well I have to say that the Met does loom rather large in the business of trusted expertise and status... and looking at the contributor he also carries a certain degree of weight.

What we have here is some sort or degree of Omani Khanjar carcass worked over by an expert workshop specialising in gems etc and a degree of very up market expertise in this field. It would be interesting to source the workshops which have already been pointed to as being Persian, Indian, Ottoman ...possibly Russian or another European house?

Salaams grendolino, Agreed on the Russian influence ...Thanks.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Jim McDougall]

While we have pretty much digressed from the khanjhar Harry posted, it has led to a fascinating discussion on the kinds of khanjhar that exist and in some degree are related if only loosely in styling.

Ibrahiim, your notes on these various khanjhars are as always intriguing, and reflect the years of tenacious research you have done on these forms, particularly as you are of course situated exactly in these Omani regions.

I agree with your comment on the veracity of Metropolitan Museum descriptions, which are typically remarkable in accuracy considering the notable figures who consult there and in their publications. I think often many assume that their publications fall into the general literature category of many auctions, museums and other catalogs in degree of errors. However knowing those who are typically involved in work by the Met, it is hard to imagine such errors slipping through.

Interesting suggestion as well concerning the lavish nature of the decoration on the turquoise studded example here, which does seem to point to either India and quite possibly Russia as noted. I would be inclined to think of Russia as the combined Arabian influence and presence in the northern regions of India, as well as the use of turquoise in Bukharen decoration (as suggested by Ariel) may have melded in presentation or diplomatic gift possibility. It is important to remember the presence of Russia in regions in Bukhara and now Afghanistan in the 19th century, and in my thinking it would not seem unlikely that a Khanjhar in this style and thus decorated might have been produced for diplomatic use.

The analogy of the Faberge egg is well placed, and anyone familiar with the fine arms from Tula in Russia will see the kinds of lavish decoration they used on presentation an diplomatically intended weapons . These seem to have also been produced in the forms of a number of other regions also .
It is

[grendolino]

As I see we have focused here on gems as the more strange part of the NY khanjar.
I have two points for consideration:
Maeby NY khanjar got its gems in another country than it was made? They seem to me to be over the filigree decoration.
The socond - are those three Omani or Arabian - we still didn't discuss the three of khanjars as a group as they all have congruent features and different from what we know as typical Saadi khanjar.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams estcrh ~ Well I have to say that the Met does loom rather large in the business of trusted expertise and status... and looking at the contributor he also carries a certain degree of weight.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I agree with your comment on the veracity of Metropolitan Museum descriptions, which are typically remarkable in accuracy considering the notable figures who consult there and in their publications. I think often many assume that their publications fall into the general literature category of many auctions, museums and other catalogs in degree of errors. However knowing those who are typically involved in work by the Met, it is hard to imagine such errors slipping through.

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.

Here is just one representitive example, this Persian char-aina cuirass was originally described for quite some time by the Met as being a 1700s North Indian cuirass, anyone with a bit of knowledge could see that it is actually a Persian char-aina cuirass, when I posted this on Pinterest a few months ago I questioned the mets description, expanded the description and added alternate names, you can see my recently made Pinterest post in the middle, now the Met has changed the description but they have spelled it wrong, you can see this is the following images.

It went from being a 17th century North Indian cuirass to being a 19th century Persian "chair-aina"...which is still not correct, the proper spelling is "char-aina".

[estcrh]

Back to Harrys jambiya, has anyone seen another example with similar brass work, I can not remember seeing one.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.
.

I agree with Estrech.
The descriptions on the MET website are just crap, most of them.
The book published recently is excellent, a sourcebook, by one of the best specialist, Alexander. As always the best specialists are not in the Museums!
Where curators are paid to sleep on their collections...

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I agree with Estrech.
The descriptions on the MET website are just crap, most of them.
The book published recently is excellent, a sourcebook, by one of the best specialist, Alexander. As always the best specialists are not in the Museums!
Where curators are paid to sleep on their collections...

David G. Alexander is an independent scholar specializing in Islamic arms, he is the author of "The arts of war: arms and armour of the 7th to 19th centuries" (Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art's collection of arms and armor), 1992 and I believe he was also a researcher at the Met.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim and Jim, while you should be able to completely trust the descriptions provided by the Met that simply is not currently possible, you have to look at each individual item and decide for yourself if the discription is a accurate and or complete. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through every available image of the armor and weapons that can in any way be called "Indo-Persian" and the Met just has not done what can be called a great job of describing many of the items. I have found discriptions that are vague, incomplete and in some cased just plain wrong and for such an esteemed museum with such a wonderful collection this should not be.

Here is just one representitive example, this Persian char-aina cuirass was originally described for quite some time by the Met as being a 1700s North Indian cuirass, anyone with a bit of knowledge could see that it is actually a Persian char-aina cuirass, when I posted this on Pinterest a few months ago I questioned the mets description, expanded the description and added alternate names, you can see my recently made Pinterest post in the middle, now the Met has changed the description but they have spelled it wrong, you can see this is the following images.

It went from being a 17th century North Indian cuirass to being a 19th century Persian "chair-aina"...which is still not correct, the proper spelling is "char-aina".

Salaams estcrh ... I note that there are several ways of describing in spelling the armour above...which by the way is an excellent picture for which you are thanked for posting. In fact the business of mirror armour is interesting in its own right from the Talismanic viewpoint.

Personally I avoid locking horns with research departments of internationally reknowned museums as my knowledge is not that great and suggestions that the Met. is in some way not up to the job seems just a little harsh to me.

On the other hand it may be true to some extent in provincial museums of dubious reknown but that is rather down to finances I suspect.

The description of the precious stone laden Khanjar which does seem to be based on the Omani Khanjar but likely executed in a foreign workshops which I suggest could be Russian...is not misleading since it states as much as most people would need to know and note it was dedicated by George C Stone...himself no slouch in the area of ethnographic weapons.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[VANDOO]

IT GETS COMPLICATED IN THE GAME OF PRESENTATION GIFTS. SOME ARE MADE TO IMPRESS THE FOREIGN DIGNITARY THOUGH THEY WOULD NEVER BE WORN BY THE PRESENTER. THEY NEED NOT BE MADE IN THE TRADITIONAL WAY BUT MUST BE FULL OF BLING TO IMPRESS AND UPSTAGE THE GIFT OF THE ONE THEY ARE PRESENTED TO. HE WHO PRESENTS THE BEST GIFT GAINS FACE COMING IN SECOND LOOSES FACE. TO HAVE YOUR ENEMY STRUT AROUND THE COURT WEARING SOMETHING CONSIDERED GAUDY AND IMPROPER IS VERY PLEASING AND YOU GAIN FACE EVEN IF HE DOESN'T KNOW IT.
NOT ALL PRESENTATION ITEMS HAVE THIS ULTERIOR MOTIVE BUT DO SHOW TRUE APPRECIATION OF WHAT THE PERSON HAS DONE AND SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE AS A MEDAL, TROPHY OR PERSONNEL GIFT WOULD. TRUE FRIENDSHIP AND RESPECT IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE GIFT OF A MATERIAL ITEM. BUT I AM GLAD THESE BEAUTIFUL ITEMS HAVE BEEN CREATED WHATEVER THE REASONS AND MOTIVES ORIGINALLY WERE.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams estcrh ... I note that there are several ways of describing in spelling the armour above...which by the way is an excellent picture for which you are thanked for posting.

Personally I avoid locking horns with research departments of internationally reknowned museums as my knowledge is not that great and suggestions that the Met. is in some way not up to the job seems just a little harsh to me.

On the other hand it may be true to some extent in provincial museums of dubious reknown but that is rather down to finances I suspect.

Ibrahiim, while there are several ways of spelling chai-aina as I have shown in my Pinterest image "chair-aina" is certainly a mistake, in fact they use "char-aina" on their other examples.

You are right that the Met is not a "provincial museum", it is an "internationally renown museum" and they should have high standards. I have absolutely no problem being a harsh critic of how they treat the arms and armor items in their collection.

The highly esteemed collector/researcher/author George Stone alone has over 1700 arms/armor item descriptions listed online yet only around 390 of his donated items have photographs attached. His items were donated in 1935 so in 80 years the Met has not been able to photograph these items.

There are around 7000 arms and armor related items with descriptions but only around 3000 have photographs attached, not a very good record in my opinion, it is not hard to take a photograph and add it to the image description.

Here are some more glaring mistakes (and one of many empty George Stone donation descriptions), three more char-aina, two are described as being "cuirass" so that anyone searching for "char-aina" will not find them. One is correctly described as being from "Iran" but no mention of "Persia", two are described as being "Indian" which I will say in my opinion is wrong, they both have the characteristics of Persian char-aina and not Indian.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams estcrh , Excellent pictures of armour which in my view and though I am a great advocate for broadening the base of thread content would be better placed in a separate thread since the photographic content is superb and I believe the writen content could be developed into a great thread....I admit it is an area I know little about but would be keen to learn ...I have a keen interest in Mirror Armour from the Talismanic viewpoint.

To remind ..we are looking at the main subject of these very very bling, (some would say bling on steroids) hugely expensive daggers, dripping with precious stones and built around the core carcass of certain areas traditional daggers...I think that is a good subject and whilst these are not your everyday wearables it is a niche area of worthwhile study ... I think they are amazing...

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.