The travels of a very important dagger

[B.I]

jens' recent 'meteoric' developed well, and progressed into a good study of meteoric iron and its use and importance.
i thought i would divert it a little and recap on this amazing dagger in a post of its own, more to avoid stopping the academic work being done in the original post.
this dagger now sits in the freer gallery at the smithsonian and it obviously holds an important place amongst the collection, and rightly so. it seems strange that a piece like this is not more commonly known, given its heritage and its mention in such a historical manuscript. to re-cap -

'it was ordered together with a dagger and two swords, to be made from the metal of a meteorite. accounts of this incident appear in jahangirs memoirs and also in the iqbal-nameh-i jahangiri. the armourer was ustad da'ud, described in the iqbal-nameh as 'well known in those days for the swords he made'. it is inscribed in gold persian nasta'liq on the spine of the blade:

'there fell in the time of jahangir shah from lightning-like precious piece.janhangir ibn akbar ordered to make from it two swords (shamshir), this knife (kard) and a dagger (khanjar). in the year 1030 (1621ad) in the year 16 (of jahangirs succession),146.'

the accession number at the smithsonian is - Purchase, F1955.27a-b and as i mentioned before, this alone can lead to additional information.
there is more to tell about its journey, although as far as i know this story hasnt been published. please excuse my brief journey into persian history, as it is not really my subject.

the qajar rulers route their history back to a turkamen decendence. although already established, the real patriarch and progenitor of the Qajar ruling house was Fath Ali Shah (attached image). his lineage still exists and at some point during the 1950s, the eldest son came to the united states to study. his mother gave him a family heirloom, and told him to sell it if he needed the money during his stay. this heirloom was the attached dagger, once owned by jahangir.
in more recent times, the younger brother visited the smithsonian, where he was shocked to see the family dagger. he did not know it had been removed from the family (how, i hear you ask!) but recalled peeling fruit with it as a child. he could also recite the inscription from memory. as the accession records show the date 1955, we can assume this is when they bought it from the elder brother.
this is known and accepted, but another interesting insight which came indirectly from the family, is that it was thought to have been owned also by shah abbas, who had possible recieved it as a gift from jahangir himself. this is a family tale, with no definate provenance, but it makes sense as jahangirs passion and exhaustive trade links with persia are well known.
interesting stuff!

[Mare Rosu]

B.I.

I do not know just how you come up with this truly amazing story!
You must have one large and intensive library.
You sir, are making history "come alive" and enjoyable.
I for one would just like to thank you for all you efforts and inputs you have made on this dagger.
It is as you say an amazing story.
What next?
Gene

[Jens Nordlunde]

B.I.

The kard is still as fantastic as when you showed it the first time, and should I comment on it, I would look like a clown waiting to be coloured .
I will however do it anyway. You wrote on the other thread: ‘also, by pure speculation from an image, without holding the piece, the persian work on the hilt just reminds me of late 18thC work, and not of the period stated.’
The story you have just told, could be the reason for, why the hilt looks like it does.

Jens

[B.I]

hi gene,
my library is important to me and well used, but just one way of getting information, and not always the first port of call. there is much information that has never been written and held by those not known to be academic, and yet their knowledge surpasses those that are more widely known. i have a long list of questions in my head and try and ask them at the right time and the right place i've been out for dinner for the last 2 nights with 2 different friends (one academic and one art dealer) and on both nights learnt something new and important (to me anyway ) and both partly concerned this dagger.
jens, there isnt much i can slip past you. yes i did state doubts about the hilt and it was something i was reluctant to mention again, at least until i could offer more than just speculation. a friend has mentioned this dagger in an article and he claimed the hilt and blade were en-suite after close examination. over dinner, i expressed my doubts and in doing so instilled doubts with him. he admitted the slight possibility of it as a theory, but claimed to have not noticed it at the time (but he wasnt looking for this directly). as you say, the hilt could have been fitted after jahangirs ownership, but this can only be speculation. i still havent finished the article due to work commitments, but i got the impression a direct persian link was being reinforced, not just in this dagger, but in jahangirs taste in general. he bought many pieces from persia, importing them himself through trade routes in trade centres such as gujerat (correct me if i'm wrong as you have probably read the article) this would make sense i suppose, as the hilt is distinctly persian although it is claimed by jahangir the blade was forged in india.
my dinner tonight offered a different slant. my guest (well, actually he was paying ) has a vast knowledge of islamic history that bounds confidently across all the regions covered by the culture. he is well established as an 'expert' (but humbly refuses this role) and there are not many books written on islamic art over the last 20 years that do not thank him gratefully in their forward. he has not seen the dagger but is fully aware of it, and was comfortable with the age of the decoration. interestingly, he claimed it was indian! i argued my case, and he returned it with a history lesson which i had to accept, although my doubts will remain until i one day see the dagger myself, or hear a convincing report from someone that examined it. he claimed that jahangirs taste was always persian, as were many of the moghul courts. in this, he had persian artisans, and indian artisans that worked in a pure persian style. not only did they import pieces from persia to india, but the safavid courts imported persian pieces from india, made by indian artisans which were well known as finer craftsmen.
this statement alone will shake many, and i did argue the commercial aspect of persian art over indian, and this, i had to admit was a weak arguement. i collect indian for a reason, in that i think it is of higher quality than persian, or at least more to my taste. i always thought the commercial world disagreed, but as i was corrected, it definately does not. the persian pieces that are much sought after are the showy blades and fine late metalwork. these are meaningless, when standing next to an important piece of indian art. the reason that the world reveres persian artisans is that the good indian work doesnt exist in the sale rooms. when a piece does appear, the collecting world goes absolutely crazy. if you forget the moser pieces, which were pure decoration and go earlier, this becomes apparant. indian craftsman have always been revered, but only during this early period of which most are unaware.
interesting stuff and i hope others will give there opinion on this as i'm sure it can be taken further. my knowledge of persian art and history is slight at best.
after two dinners and many discussions, of which this dagger was just one i wasnt left with much more physical information to contribute. i still have my doubts, but now they are a little more uniform and when i one day see this piece, i will be looking at it with different eyes.

food was good though with no clowns in sight!

[Andrew]

Fascinating story, Brian. Thanks!


I've been tantalized by beautiful Indian and Persian weapons for some time now. Some of the pieces currently residing in the Nordlunde Collection are awesome.

One question. Your preference for Indian weapons is clear. What's your opinion on Indian wootz when compared to Persian? Some of the most breath-taking wootz blades I've ever seen are Persian.

[B.I]

hi andrew,
my taste has always been indian, and although i can appreciate persian watering and am in awe of the delicacies of the pattern, i have always found them a little cold when compared to the more earthy, personal feeling i get from indian. i am a huge fan of indian 'open' watering which i hold in higher esteem that the manipulated persian pattern, or the traditional indian 'tight' wootz. its all personal taste at the end of the day. the kitchener collection held many persian blades, all with a fabulous dark (almost black) persian watering that you have to accept as the finest of their kind.
also, with my last speculative offering, how do you know what you see as persian blades are actually persian? i have good indian swords with a ricassos fitted on to what i always assumed was a good persian blade. but as the complete piece was made and fitted in india, why not assume it is pure indian but made to suit the persian taste of the time.
i dont know, but there are many questions without answers and i would hope that with enough digging, answers may yield one day.

andrew, i have sent you an email.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Andrew, thank you for your kind words about my collection. Although I started to collect many years ago, I have not added much to my collection lately. Instead I have added considerably to my library on the subject during the last years, as the knowledge is as important as the weapons themselves.

B.I., I would suggest, if I may, that you dine out with friends at least three times a week, and give us a full report, not later than two days after the dinner. This would, if nothing else, add a lot to our knowledge.
The thread you have started is very interesting and also very important. I do realise that some collect weapon out of curiosity and to hang them on a wall, while others collect them to study and to get as much knowledge out of them as possible. Personally I have read books covering six to eight different areas, and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change .
The different ways wootz looks when the item is finished, can be due to different things Different ores, different ways to make the ingots, different ways of heating and cooling the item, different metals forged with the ingot, and quite a few other things I guess – but I hope Ann will be kind enough to tell us more about this, as this is an important part of this discussion.
It must be remembered that when it is said that the Indian wootz blades were more greyish and had a more floating pattern than the Persian blades, this is a truce with modifications.
The Indian smiths were masters, and could, to my opinion, make whatever pattern or colour the customer wanted. I don’t intend to start a discussion on who were the biggest artists, the Indian or the Persian smiths, only to mention that the Indian smiths were no lesser artists than the Persian.
Another thing is, that during the Mogul rule many artists were brought to India to work for the court, and everyone learned from each other, so although a blade looks as if it is Persian, an Indian smith might have made it. I doubt however, that the more greyish floating pattern was made by the Persians smiths working in India – but I don’t know.
Have a look at the two different types of pattern and tell me, that the one to the right, without any doubt was made by a Persian smith.

[Ann Feuerbach]

I wrote a bit about reasons for different patterns in the A worthy Kattar thread.

You do know that the blade on the left is pattern welded Damascus, not wootz.

The influence of ingot cooling and forging is, however, something I am/would like to work on further. As a side point, from what I have studied, the Persians etc (at least at Merv), had a very advanced level of craftsmenship and technical, science skills. More "advanced" than the Indians. However, I have some great meals over a campfire, compared to 4 star restarants. That is to say, sofistication does not equal "better" craftsmen.

[ingelred]

Don't get me wrong but You write about Wootz steel but as far as I see it the left blade is made of pattern welded Damaskus steel with the pattern resembling some kind of small roses or rain drops!?!

Greetings, Helge

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ann and Helge, I had chosen a wrong blade - sorry. Here is another blade.

[ariel]

I guess I am the ideal judge: not metallurgist, not well educated in the fine points of Damascus steelmaking and not into rich and sophisticated weapons. In short, a rank amateur.
Personally, I like the first example on the right : the wootz lines are not as tightly controlled as in the last example but are free-floating and very "poetic" (Sorry, can't find a better word!). The last example seems to me to have a rigid and "squeezed" appearance.
Well, this is my 5 cents worth.
And it is worth exactly that: 5 cents. Because at the end of the day all esthetic judgemens are purely subjective and are a matter of personal taste. Both patterns in this thread are high class objects of art and each will have it's admirers.
" De gustibus non est disputandum", no arguing about taste.
Or, as one guy said about his horrifically ugly and grossly deformed girlfiend " Well, either you do like Picasso or you don't"

[Ann Feuerbach]

Yes, the eye of the beholder...on a similar note, the Islamic Historian Al-Beruni said that sometime in Khorasan (region of Central Asia), they do not etch a crucible steel blade to reveal the pattern.

[B.I]

i had not intended this post to be a statement of the difference of indian vs persian but it seems as though it lends itself to this. i am not complaining as maybe it needs to be discussed.
jens, you say -
and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change

this was my point exactly. the more you read, the more dominated you are with the general concensus. if you wanted to seperate yourself from this, where do you start? do you forget everything you've read and start afresh? i think this may be the only way to move forward. jens, you show one blade that is distinctly indian and one is without a doubt persian. and yet, the fittings of this 'persian' dagger is indian. now, do we assume that it is persian because fiegel and his peers say so?
it is hard to detach yourself away from the current thought, and i am as guilty as any for doing the same. if a dagger is indian in form, and yet the blade seems persian, we should assume it is indian and take the journey to convince ourselves otherwise, instead of the other way around. otherwise, we are all guilty of assumption.
the patterns are deceptive, and the more i look into mughal influence, the more the world opens up. we have our definate sources in egerton and hendley (and a small handfull of others). but, we know for a fact that mistakes were made, and yet we still jump on a well known bandwagon and scream persian, when we should be assuming indian, and asking persian. once again, i state i am guilty as well. we are all afraid to doubt our peers and yet surely by questioning, we are furthering what they initiated. they never claimed to be experts, but just took what was known at the time a little further.
ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were -
'More "advanced" than the Indians'
is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. the records clearly show the persian influence of the mughal courts. their presence in india did more than influence the local style, and it developed into a hybrid, as well as a simulation of a fashionalble style of the age. in my studies, i have drawn a distinct line between the two cultures and for the first time, i doubt my own findings. these doubts are not sudden (over dinner??) but instilled over a confusion of conflicting data.
rick (rsword) showed a sword recently that we all enjoyed pushing our opinions on, and yet we were all reluctant to claim anything against our known sources. his sword showed a distinct persian influence over a definate indian style. so, what about taking it further. if the fashion of the time was persian, and not the underlying hindu culture, why do we not assume the 'persian' blades were not created locally to suit the current trend. why do we all claim that the ingots were exported to persia and not complete blades. why do we assume that the indians exported ingots and then imported complete blades made by the persian artisans. i'm not saying this didnt happen, but i know for a fact that the indian artisans were not as secondarly to their persian superiors (???) as some like to assume. where is this information coming from?
if the mughal courts imported their 'home' culture to india, why would this stop at bladesmithing.
for the first time in ove rone hundred years, the academic world is beginning to branch away from the assumed knowledge of their contemporaries. this division happened some time ago in the higher-end collective world and its about time that india has had the acclaim it deserved. yes, it was over-run with a dominant culture, but it did so admirably and also kept its own tradition to run alongside its 'conqueror'.
can anyone claim the persian artisan was more advanced than the intricate work of tamil nadu, which fought to keep its native style throughout an islamic dominance and a moghul annoyance (sorry to any aurangzeb fans, but he never truly conquered the deccan as he liked to have claimed)
ariel, your claim of rank amateurism is admirable (but not believed by anyone ). this stance just shows an open mind. your personal opinion should overshadow your views, as this shows a reluctance to listen to others.

not quite sure where the above rant has led, but i'm still deeply entrenched in the indian camp. the truth may be obvious, or shockingly opposing general thought, but i know the answers are not quite apparant as yet but we can only hope they become known during our collective lifetimes.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Like I said earlier B.I., I think that many of the ‘Persian’ blades were made in India – not that I can prove it, it is only a feeling.
I do see how blades could easily be imported into India, even blades made of Indian wootz. If the wootz ingots were exported by sea to Persia or other places, the blades made, and then exported by caravan via the Silk Road to north India – no one would tell from where the ingots came, the only thing the buyer would know was, that the blade came from Persia – so the steel must have been Persian.

Jens

[Ann Feuerbach]

Originally Posted by B.I

ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were -
'More "advanced" than the Indians'
is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. .

I base this on the comparison of the crucibles and furnaces used to create the crucible steel. In central Asia high quality refractory clay and very well thought out/ complex furnace design, vs India that used ordinary clay and furnaces not much different that a hearth.

[Ann Feuerbach]

Don't forget, Uzbekistan was a HUGE producer of crucible steel in antiquity and northern India (which technically is Central Asia) is not that far away.

[B.I]

hi ann,
i can only judge the end product, and the potential history. as for the manafucturing, i gladly bow down to your superior knowledge
when you say 'crucibles and furnaces used to create the crucible steel' do you mean from the whole of india? are there differences, as i had always assumed. surely the wootz cakes from the north may differ from the south, and the creation of the furnaces.
also, is the pattern created down to the the furnace, or the forger within?
if the wootz cakes were exported to persia and created into wonderful persian patterns, then surely it is down to the craftsmen and not the origianl furnace. the studies done in the eary 19thC could understand the process of creating the wootz cakes, but they seemed almost lost in the creation of the blades, claiming the 'secrets' to be lost or hidden from european eyes.
please excuse my ignorance, and let me down gently if i outragously blunder
i thought the main source of wootz was from salem and golconda in the south. the wootz here 'gave only a slight indication of a pattern, the crystals being small and the steel inferior in quality'. surely this is the tight chrystaline wootz that seems apparant on many indian blades, due to the amount of ore being mined from this area. in my collecting, i've noticed that wootz of this type is not as rare as we would actually think. most pieces of quality are indeed wootz, its just that the pattern is sometimes not easy to bring back.
however a wooz cake from cutch 'not only furnished excellent steel, capable of being hardened and tempered without much difficulty, but exhibited the damascus figure, both in the cake itself, and when drawn out by forging it into a bar.'

i hope that my sources are not outdated and laughable in comparison to modern research the author watched the cakes being made, and also made an in depth study at the time, which also included giving the cakes to european smiths to attempt to replicate the maniputaion of these wootz cakes, as well as trying himself.

[Ann Feuerbach]

The research of crucible steel production in Central Asia is quite new. I studied the material from Merv, Turkmenistan, and Thilo Rehren and Olga Papakristu have been studing the remains from Uzbekistan. At Merv we have small scale production but in Uzbekistan they have at least 100,000 crucible, from centuries of production. I reviewed every ethnographic account of crucible steel production I could find. Yes, furnaces are different but some things appear the same...check out http://moltenmuse.home.att.net for some information on the differences and similarities. It seems the fine indian pattern is due to the fact that they tool the crucibles out when the steel was liquid, which caused fast solidification, small dendrites, which means closer dendrite spaces, and Verhoeven et al found that the cementite aligns along these dendrites. In Central Asia, the ingots solidified slowly, this produces larger dendrites, bigger spacing between them and therefore you can have thicker patterns. Of course forging also plays a part. Also, Mn was deliberatly added sometimes in Central Asia, which would make the lines darker when etched. This still needs more research but we are working on it!

[Rick]

Okay , now I'm getting confused (nothing new in that ) .
Pictured below is a Bokhara karud with what I consider a very tight pattern .

Using the Occam's Razor approach shouldn't this be Uzbek crucible steel simply by virtue of the proximity of Bokhara to Uzbekistan ?

[Ann Feuerbach]

OOO nice blade! The coarse Central Asia, fine India theory is not full proof. Also you can make a coarse one finer, but you can not make a fine one coarser. Also, forging plays a part as well as individual craftsmen. It is just that with the little evidence we have (a few ingots and crucibles from archaeological sites in India, Sri Lanka and Central Asia), we see differences in the microstructure of the ingots due to solidification rates.