I’ll suggest an alternative hypothesis, taking into account some clues related to the original Met exhibit.
The provenance shows the “implement” was obtained some 35 years ago from a named individual. Google search indicates that the named individual is possibly Iranian, and was the president of an oriental carpet company at about the time of the Met’s acquisition.
Although we are all programmed to see such an implement as a weapon, we have agreed that its design is very unsuitable for that purpose. Given its provenance, is it unreasonable to think of it as an elegant tool for use in trimming or shaping sumptuous knotted rugs?
Take another look at what seems to me to be a much more comfortable and useful approach to using the “implement”:
