Another Dahl

[JamesKelly]

The dealer called this an "Indo-Persian dahl circa 1750-1850" Any ideas whether more Indian, or more Persian?
It is 444 mm dia (17-1/2"), 0.80mm (0.0315") thick. Where the rim is riveted on it has a double thickness of 2.36mm (0.093"). All measurements taken in inches.
I had thought about rubbing it with a lemon, or whatever one uses to bring out pattern to find out if it were wootz. But when I examine closely I see some very, very fine scratches like it might have had thin gold applied to it. Using a great deal of imagination I might think I see a gold tint to a few stripes on that tiger in the middle. Or, maybe I drank too much cough syrup. Were all that koftgari still present I suspect I could not have afforded this interesting addition to my walls.
The second picture shows a fight involving an individual with goat horns, ears and beard. I suppose that represents someone of whom the shield maker had a low opinion?
Then there is one with maybe a king, nicely attended by a lady on each side.
And a man riding an elephant.
Do any of these images - like the guy with horns - have a particular ethnic significance?

[Runjeet Singh]

Hi James,

The shield in my opinion is Indian, late 19thC.

Your 2nd image shows Hunuman in the centre, the Hindu Deity, who is half man half monkey. The horned beast he is fighting, is probably an evil demon from Hindu mythology. To his right, probably the Hindu goddess Lakshmi (four arms) but could also be a number of other goddess's.

The king, flanked either side by female attendants, seems to be in the pose of the flute playing Hindu god Krishna, and the attendants likely to be his female companions (Gopi's).

It's funny that Hunuman keeps popping up on items of Arms & Armour (I'm sure there is a recent thread). Probably due to his brave and martial character, weapons makers thought it fit to have him feature in their designs.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Runjeet

[Robert]

Wonderful shield James and thank you for sharing it with us. Could you possibly post a photo showing the entire piece?

Best,
Robert

[JamesKelly]

Thanks for the reminder, Robert. Here are front and back, along with a detail not in my first post.

[Iain]

A beautiful piece of work. Thanks for sharing. The amount of time this must have taken the artisan...

How heavy is it? I assume these were essentially parade pieces?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Iain

A beautiful piece of work. Thanks for sharing. The amount of time this must have taken the artisan...

How heavy is it? I assume these were essentially parade pieces?

Salaams Iain, The work is done remarkably fast. It employs a technique called spinning which is an old style of lathe application... where a die is rammed into a fast spinning object usually a plate or shield shape... and a cyclic pattern is imprinted on the revolving surface with some weight behind the spinning imprint... using a rudimentary lathe... Spinning. It goes back a long way... 11 th C but also commonly seen in the 19th and 20th. The give away sign is a dot in the centre of the work. The entire pattern can be inscribed or occasionally added decoration can be made by mallet and chisel after the main pattern is rammed home.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Iain]

Interesting Ibrahiim, thanks for the description. Would be interesting to see a video of the process.

[Tim Simmons]

Every time one is fired somebody makes lots of money.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6tUYSrYZE

[JamesKelly]

Ibrahiim -Yes, that tell-tale dot is right in the centre of a flower amidst the four bosses. Probably spun over a hard wood dome shape. The figures appear to have been engraved, that is, cut with a small chisel. Either pushed by hand or with a small graver's hammer.

Ian - this shield weighs 3 pounds 4-1/2 ounces (1488 grams to you). My tulwar, posted Oct 1, weighs 2 pounds 3 ounces (992 gram). I have no knowledge of what constitutes an acceptable shield weight for combat.

Tim - Thanks for the video. In my employed days I saw a lot of half-doughnut shapes, about 610 mm OD, 3mm wall spun from nickel heat resistant alloys. They were for gas fired heat treat furnaces, an environment which tends to make Hastelloy X disappear. The aerospace guys have used X since the 1950's.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams I think the give away sign of a spun decorated item is in its repeat pattern which because of the fast turning of the work and being rammed by a spinning die is cut in seconds requiring only finishing hand work by the artesan..by chisel and mallet . The bulk of the pattern is done by this rudimentary lathe. The centre dot is there because that is the method by which the item is secured so it does not move when spun ramming is taking place. This is the ancient technique of spun decoration; not the same thing as modern lathe spinning. Sometimes you see two dots at the centre where it has slipped giving a double strike rather blurred pattern ... I assume the work is flat but later in the case of a shield or bowl the item is hand worked to shape.

The famous book by Rachel Ward on Islamic Metalwork refers.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams Iain, The work is done remarkably fast. It employs a technique called spinning which is an old style of lathe application... where a die is rammed into a fast spinning object usually a plate or shield shape... and a cyclic pattern is imprinted on the revolving surface with some weight behind the spinning imprint... using a rudimentary lathe... Spinning. It goes back a long way... 11 th C but also commonly seen in the 19th and 20th. The give away sign is a dot in the centre of the work. The entire pattern can be inscribed or occasionally added decoration can be made by mallet and chisel after the main pattern is rammed home.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

To demonstrate Ibrahiim's comment, here's Seljuk bronze plate, presumably around 12th C. Notice the center dot indicating the referenced spinning. The item shows some genuine age based on patina. The quality of chiseling is quite crude due to the inferior production method.