I have used every combination of search terms I could think of and looked through the images I know of from Indian Museums and still I have not found any more images of carved iron rams head dagger hilts.

If they were "prominent" and "common" why is it so hard to find any additional images of one? I also thought they were more widely used but what at first appeared to be old turned out to be modern on close inspection.

The Met SEE http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/452103 for a Rams Head Hilt. I the case of the Met exhibit is of Kuldan style ...which is perhaps described reasonably at http://www.sneharateria.com/let-kund...ak-for-itself/

:) Please see http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14942 from #2 of that reference I Quote"
The rams head is termed 'meshamuki' (Pant, 1980, New Delhi, p.113, fig. 294, mesha=sheep, but applies to ram as well). Most of these 'rams head' hilts on daggers or swords seem associated with Rajputs in N. India in the periods noted. According to the Vedas, many animals and creatures are associated as vehicles for various divinities in the Hindu pantheon of deities, and the ram is one for that of the four Agnivashi clans' ". Unquote.

It does not appear to be shaped from iron though, which is the type of ram's head hilt i believe Estrch was questioning as being common in antiquity.

I have seen a few iron ram heded daggers in the museums I visited in Rajahstan, but I didn't take any photos of them as they looked quite dull and uninteresting. Maybe that's why there aren't so many photos of them on the net, because they don't look very spectacular. :shrug:

Another Ramshead Dagger is at http://library.clevelandart.org/node/238552

Being able to hand carve any type of animals head from a solid piece of iron / steel with primitive tools is quite spectacular to me, and much more interesting than plain iron hilts of which there are many examples, so how about if we look for ANY type of carved iron dagger hilt with an animals head.....ram, horse, elephant etc.

"The Arts of the Muslim Knight," page 220

"Arms and Armour: Traditional weapons of India," page 50, 73, 78, 83, 84, 139, 140

Some of them may be other metals (gilt brass) but most are iron.

PS: Yes, carving iron is difficult but it was quite wide spread and the Katar you showed in your earlier posting is just one of the many examples of such ironwork. To my knowledge, iron animal head hilts were mostly popular in the 19th century, but I cannot remember where I got this information from. Tried to find in a few of my books but couldn't find it there so it might be anecdotal. :shrug:

Here is one that seems to be carved iron / steel, from the Met Museum.

Indian khanjar dagger, 17th century, steel, iron, silver, copper alloy, H. 14 3/16 in. (36 cm); W. 3 1/4 in. (8.3 cm); Wt. 12.8 oz. (362.9 g), Met Museum.

Isn't it copper or brass?!

Anyhow, the margins of the hilt are pretty much like those of the one in the original posting.

But again... 17th century (namely 1600+) ?!?! I doubt! Much more likely 19th century!

I am not sure if it was cast or carved but the hilt is iron according the the Museums description. Now here is an interesting statement. "This dagger is exceptional in that its hilt is made entirely of iron." This seems to indicate that in the opinion of the Museum, iron / steel zoomorphic hilts were not common.....humm.




References
Pyhrr, Stuart W., Donald J. La Rocca, and Mr. Morihiro Ogawa. Arms and Armor: Notable Acquisitions 1991-2002. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 4, 2002–June, 29 2003. p. 40, no. 36, ill.

Taking all varieties of Zoomorphic headed hilts is one way to do it... after all threads take their own line naturally and there are no rules as such to direct in which way we ought to pursue these...however, there are many zo omorphic themed hilts which are quite different in region and makeup thus it will become a little messy no? One post may illustrate lion heads whilst another may still be examining rams heads ...the confusion could be very difficult to control...so I advise and suggest sticking to one form and if another form falls under scrutiny the member can start another thread but the focus of each thread should be clear...and on this thread we focus upon Rams Heads. A researcher can thus be assured that when working on Rams Heads in future that our Library is accurate and true... You want Rams Heads? Here they are!!...If a Forumite wishes to raise the thread Zoomorphic heads on Daggers and Swords...so be it but it will be clear to researchers that this is what is in the thread...a general approach rather than a detailed pin point look at a specific or more general approach...
This is a great thread and all participants have given it a good airing... thus I do not want to be difficult... and will en devour to run with the ball in whatever direction it goes but I recommend one head at a time...lest it gets in a tangle... :)

Ibrahiim, actually not "all varieties", just carved iron / steel ones, this is due to the relative lack of any one type.

These additional photos quite clearly prove it is iron.

Maybe they consider it exceptional for 17th century. Maybe they consider it exceptional because thy didn't see another. However, I have seen a few and I don't think it was exceptional in the 19th century.

Moreover, you found yourself a couple of iron carved zoomorphic hilts.
I found others (at least a couple of the ones I indicated are iron).

Now how many more do you think are needed to officially say they were "common"?!

What relevance will it have as the next question might be "how common" or "define common"?!
:shrug:

I believe the essential point was to demonstrate the existence of such hilts as early as 17th century and whether there were only one hundred made or ten thousand is less relevant.

I would not call carved iron zoomorphic hilted daggers common when there are only two images available besides the one being discussed here. I do not have the books you mentioned and have not seen the images they contain and I have not seen any images from Indian museums but still over several hundred years I would expect to see many more if they were that common. It may be that iron / steel was a much harder material to carve than stone and ivory and was just not a popular material for the people who would have made these types of hilts.

Here is another one with a horse head hilt, this one though is described as being cast, I think the lion head one may be cast as well, there seems to be a what could be a casting line on it (red arrrows).

Of course it is originally cast. Almost all metallic hilts are first cast in a raw shape, then chiseled to give them the final detailed shape.

They are definitely not chiseled directly from a raw iron ingot.

And one of the easiest things to do is to polish off the casting line.

One thing I'm noticing in the hilt photos is that there don't seem to be a lot (aside from ones that are modern) where there are horns or ears that stick out very far. It's one thing for a hilt to be carved to look like a lion/tiger/bear/etc, but perhaps it's entirely another for it to have actual horns. My dagger appears to have horns made separately and welded into place. Or...it's just occurred to me...perhaps they're epoxied into place. There's a lot of blackness and discoloration right around the base of the horns. Is there a non-destructive test for epoxy or other glues?

I assume that if you polish the area until it is completely free of oxidation, and examine it with a magnifying glass, you should be able to tell if it was welded or glued. But this might be seen as destructive already.
:shrug:

PS: However, this is a very interesting observation that would almost certainly indicate a much more recent production.

Interesting, I did not give the process much thought, but if this was the case there really should be more examples.

Could be that it was made in cire-perdy (or however it is spelled). In that case there would likely only be one example.

Cire-perdue (lost-wax) process maybe if it were bronze but almost certainly not iron.

On second thoughts, I doubt that the horns can be cast even in bronze with the wax process. :shrug:

Horns can be done in lost wax, but if iron - crazy difficult and in parts.

I think sand casting would be the method for making an iron / steel hilt, lost wax is good for metals with a low melting point. With sand casting I do not think you would get as much detail as you would with lost wax.

Exactly! That's why after casting, the Iron hilts need to be processed to give them the desired finish and detail.

Another rams head

More rams...http://suroorasia.blogspot.com/2014/...-oriental.html shows an excellent multiple and is from a very famous author... :)

Persian gold.

After seeing some clearly modern but well made swords with wootz blades and hilts being sold on Ebay I think this whole dagger may in fact be a new creation. Here is an example.

Enamelled Dagger National Museum, New Delhi (India)
Late 17th Century
Place of Origin: Rajasthan, Rajput
Materials: Steel
Dimensions: L: 34.9 cm.


The ram-shaped hilt of metal is profusely encrusted with rubies, emeralds and other jewels. The sheath of metal is delicately perforated with images of birds, animals and creeper designs.

Contrary to my initial oppinion, I concede that you may be right. There are indeed quite a few very good, traditional, but newly made wootz blades on the market. And they are sold as antiques. :eek:

If what I have seen is what I think it is then this very scary. People are being fooled by a new wootz that is a step above what has previously been called "wootz". The swords I have seen have no scabbard or obviously newly made ones, and the swords show no sigh of wear / age etc but they are fooling people, some are selling for a lot of money.

Take a look at this, the cracks in the metal, the lack of wear, the wootz pattern, there is some red rust, this makes me think that the steel rams head dagger being discussed here is of the same type, a modern made replica. The rams head hilt is atypical with other similar examples and while it is pitted there is no sign of wear as you would expect to see on a 100+yr old dagger and there is a small amount of what looks like red rust on it as well. To many warning signs in my opinion.

I'm glad we're moving towards consensus. On the other hand, it's a disappointing consensus.

Oh well; they can't all be antiques.

There is still no smoking gun but there is a lot of room for doubt. On the bright side, even if newly made it is an excellent example showing some skill and workmanship not often seen in modern made examples. Many people would not mind owning your dagger even if they knew for sure that it was newly made.

Cthulhu:

I don't think you should feel guilty or ashamed for buying a nice dagger believing it was perhaps older than it is. There is a strong market for these well made knives and they are produced within a culture that has been making them for centuries. It's a genuine Indian knife made in an older style, but probably produced recently and not an antique. We all live and learn. :)

I know a few people who would pay several hundred dollars for such a knife.