Indian Daggers?

[Miguel]

Hi Everyone,

Whilst rooting in my collection I came across these three daggers which I think are 19th C.
Dagger No1:- I think that this is Indian with Arab influence, possibly from Bhuj. It is all steel construction with steel scabbard being decorated with koftgari work.
Overall length is 12.5 ins with a blade length of 8 ins x 1.375 ins wide.

Dagger No2:- I think that this is also Indian of all steel construction having a hilt of pistol or stylised birds head form with a chiselled foliage decoration. The blade is of flamboyant form with a decorated cartouche on each side.
The scabbard is of velvet covered wood, the nap having worn off the velvet.
Overall length is 18 ins with a blade length of 12.75 ins and width of 1.75 ins.

Dagger No3:- I am not sure whether this is Indian or Qajar period Persian. It is of all steel construction with a steel scabbard, the hilt and scabbard being decorated in a similar manner to Dagger No1.
Overall length is 15.5 ins with a blade length of 10.25 ins and width of 2 ins.

Your comments and confirmation or otherwise of origins and dating would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Dagger No2:-

[Miguel]

Dagger No3:-

[ALEX]

Hello, Miguel
You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C.
No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C.
No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1)

[ariel]

I have an uneasy feeling that all of them are either fully modern or assembled from new and somewhat older parts.
BTW, isn't the handle on #2 put backward? The pommel should be on the blade's convex side.
Am I wrong?

[ALEX]

Ariel, you're right. No 2 has handle other way, but it is Qajar nevertheless, could be for some reason or design it is that way, it looks matching as an item.

[ariel]

Well, real Qajar knife makers were less likely to make such silly mistake: they saw khanjars daily, didn't they?
Shall we call it a la Qajar? :-)

[ALEX]

According to workmanship and material it is Qajar, could be slightly after 1925 but the work and style is typical late Qajar, and late Qajar is still Qajar) I'd not discard it because the handle orientation.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, real Qajar knife makers were less likely to make such silly mistake: they saw khanjars daily, didn't they?
Shall we call it a la Qajar? :-)

These look like versions of jambiya, khanjar would have a double curved blade I believe.

I am not a big fan of most late Persian Qajar weapons, this particular one has some interesting differences. While that handle orientation is not common at all it is not unknown.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by ALEX

According to workmanship and material it is Qajar, could be slightly after 1925 but the work and style is typical late Qajar, and late Qajar is still Qajar) I'd not discard it because the handle orientation.

Since Qajar dynasty did not exist after 1925 anymore, I have no objections.

How about Pahlavi, a la Qajar? :-)

[ALEX]

not changing my mind, Ariel there is no evidence it was done after 1925 this kind of work is almost exclusively associated with Qajar, so the term sticks what I meant is that if it was done in 1926 by a master who continued making them a year prior... but that is subjective of course. the motif is certainly Qajar and I do not believe it is much later.
---------------------------------
By the way, does anyone have similarly styled jambiya of Pahlavi era for comparison?

[ariel]

Well, no bickering about that on my end.

Happy New Year!

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by ALEX

Hello, Miguel
You're right, no.1 is Indian, rather modern, not much Arab influence, more of a novelty item to resemble Mughal style. The blade is of "tiger-eye" pattern, late 20 C.
No.2 is Persian Qajar, decent quality for this type, late 19/early 20C.
No. 3 is Persian/Indo-Persian), not as old as 2 but not as "recent" as 1)

Hi Alex,
Thank you very much for your comments, I never ceased to be impressed by yours and other members knowledge, I learn something every time. Would you say then that the first piece is meant for tourists or made to deceive? Thank you again and I wish you a Happy New Year.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

These look like versions of jambiya, khanjar would have a double curved blade I believe.

I am not a big fan of most late Persian Qajar weapons, this particular one has some interesting differences. While that handle orientation is not common at all it is not unknown.

Hi Estcrh,
Thank you very much for you comments and improved photos. I would agree with you regarding the name of the items, I would call them Jambiyas not Khanjars for the same reason single curve not double. Thanks for the photo which should settle the way the pommel faces query.
Wishing you a Happy New Year
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, no bickering about that on my end.

Happy New Year!

Thanks for your comments.

wishing you a Happy New Year
Miguel

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Hi Alex,
...Would you say then that the first piece is meant for tourists or made to deceive? Thank you again and I wish you a Happy New Year.
Regards
Miguel

Hello Miguel,
Yes, this would be proper assessment. First was made for the decorative purposes. even though the blade is damascus, the technique is relatively simple, and it was not meant for use.
Happy New Year to you too!