Two Indian Knives for interest and/or comment

[Miguel]

Thank you for your reply Ibrahiim and particularly for the links showing two very good examples of the "Tigers Tooth" dagger. Your assumption regarding the tang is correct.
Regards
Miguel

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Miguel,

Things are pretty clear for the Tiger Tooth dagger but I see no comments on the second one.

In my oppinion, the second one is a more artistic XX century Indian interpretation of a Khukuri, hence not an etnographically correct Indian knife. Yet, it appears to have a very well made, sturdy and effective blade.

If I were you, I would test the Tiger Tooth dagger for wootz, as most examples I have seen were made of wootz.

Regards,

Marius

[Tatyana Dianova]

For the second one please take a look here:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=pesh
By the way, there were very good Indian antique Kukris as well. There are some examples on the Kukri Forum. But this one is of course different.
The Tiger Tooth is pretty late too, I believe from the second half of the 19th century - beginning of 20th century.

[Miguel]

Thank you Marius for your reply, I had never thought of the second one as an Indian Kukri. I have always thought it was Indian made as a hunting knife for a European with it having quillons and a false edge. With regard to the first one I don't think it is wootz I cant see any pattern in the steel.

Thank you also Tatyana, the link was very interesting. I also agree with your dating.
Regards
Miguel

[Gonzalo G]

Hi Miguel,
Are you sure that the Tiger's Tooth has 4 inches (10cm) at the widest part of the blade? It seems disproportionate with its total lenght, but I can be mistaken. The surface of the blade looks as it could be made from multilaminated steel, but photos are tricky.
Regards

[Rick]

If you ever get bored with that kukri.............

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Hi Miguel,
Are you sure that the Tiger's Tooth has 4 inches (10cm) at the widest part of the blade? It seems disproportionate with its total lenght, but I can be mistaken. The surface of the blade looks as it could be made from multilaminated steel, but photos are tricky.
Regards

Hello Gonzalo, well spotted, thanks for pointing it out I must be cracking up
I have checked again and the blade is 2 ins wide just below the hilt then 1.75 ins. Not sure about the blade looks like carbon steel to me.
Regards
Miguel

[Gonzalo G]

Thank you, Miguel. The multilamination can be made of many steels, and it was made in the old times from simple carbon steel. Several plates were forge-welded to make a blade.
Regards

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Hello Gonzalo, well spotted, thanks for pointing it out I must be cracking up
I have checked again and the blade is 2 ins wide just below the hilt then 1.75 ins. Not sure about the blade looks like carbon steel to me.
Regards
Miguel

Hello Miguel,

Wootz IS carbon steel and when polished, it is practically undistinguishable from plain carbon steel.

I agree with the age of the blade suggested in previous postings and with the high probability it is not wootz. However, it remains a slight probability that the blade is older than it was estimated and it is made of wootz. And I would explore this possibility.

Anyhow, both are very nice and well made blades!

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

If I were you, I would test the Tiger Tooth dagger for wootz, as most examples I have seen were made of wootz.

From what I have observed there are two types of Indian tiger tooth jambiya, and they are a type of jambiya....one type has a thick blade and the tang is also thick. The other type is a much less well made type.....a thinner blade, a bit flexible even and also thin at the tang.....for a person of less wealth, or a youth maybe, who knows but there is a world of difference between the two types...I also have one of the lesser types and it is certainly not wootz. hard to tell with a photo but in hand the difference is clear.

Miquel can tell which type his is.

Thin blade, thin tang, not wootz.


Thick blade and tang.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by estcrh

From what I have observed there are two types of Indian tiger tooth jambiya.

Thin blade, thin tang, not wootz.

Thank you for the info! Very useful!

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

From what I have observed there are two types of Indian tiger tooth jambiya, and they are a type of jambiya....one type has a thick blade and the tang is also thick. The other type is a much less well made type.....a thinner blade, a bit flexible even and also thin at the tang.....for a person of less wealth, or a youth maybe, who knows but there is a world of difference between the two types...I also have one of the lesser types and it is certainly not wootz. hard to tell with a photo but in hand the difference is clear.

Miquel can tell which type his is.

Thin blade, thin tang, not wootz.


Thick blade and tang.

Hello estcrh,
Thank you for the info from which I would say mine is a lesser type. Another reason I think this is the line engraving at the Rivas so. The better quality one look to be chiselled decoration.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

From what I have observed there are two types of Indian tiger tooth jambiya, and they are a type of jambiya....one type has a thick blade and the tang is also thick. The other type is a much less well made type.....a thinner blade, a bit flexible even and also thin at the tang.....for a person of less wealth, or a youth maybe, who knows but there is a world of difference between the two types...I also have one of the lesser types and it is certainly not wootz. hard to tell with a photo but in hand the difference is clear.

Miquel can tell which type his is.

Thin blade, thin tang, not wootz.


Thick blade and tang.

Hello estcrh,
Thank you for the info from which I would say mine is a lesser type. Another reason I think this is the line engraving at the Rivas so. The better quality one look to be chiselled decoration.
Regards
Miguel

[Jens Nordlunde]

Look at the dagger with the blue background. Do you see the peacocks on the blade?
You often see them on early southern katars.
Ok, they are not easy to see, but with a bit of experience it should be possible.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Look at the dagger with the blue background. Do you see the peacocks on the blade?
You often see them on early southern katars.
Ok, they are not easy to see, but with a bit of experience it should be possible.

Here is Runjeets description, he also mentions "South India".

Indian tiger tooth jambiya, 18th century, The blade is earlier and very rare, similar to blades found on hooded Katar from the Vijaynagar empire of South India (1336-1646 AD). The blade was probably traded into North India where it was mounted on this hilt, there is a possibility that the whole dagger was made in South India (The Deccan) in the North Indian ‘Tiger-Tooth’ style using a local blade.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Hello estcrh,
Thank you for the info from which I would say mine is a lesser type. Another reason I think this is the line engraving at the Rivas so. The better quality one look to be chiselled decoration.
Regards
Miguel

Miguel, yours is in excellent condition, it looks like the chape has been polished. When you put several examples of the same type together you can see the similarities.

[Miguel]

Hello estcrh, I see what you mean they are almost identical. The scabbard and chape for this type of knife follow a similar design as do the knives, interesting.

Regarding my knife with a kukri type blade, I agree that it is Indian as made in India with an Indian style blade but I don't see it as an Indian Kukri. I have a number of kukris and the shortlist blade is 11ins, kukris are far larger weapons. In my opinion I still think it is a hunting knife made for a European. Many years ago I saw a similar size knife in a dealers shop which had a jade /green stone, slab hilt and was told by the dealer that it had been made in India as a hunting knife for a member of the British military The size just doesn't seem right to me to be used as a kukri in my opinion.
Regards
Miguel

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Regarding my knife with a kukri type blade, I agree that it is Indian as made in India with an Indian style blade but I don't see it as an Indian Kukri. I have a number of kukris and the shortlist blade is 11ins, kukris are far larger weapons.

Kukri come in many different shapes and sizes.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Regarding my knife with a kukri type blade, I agree that it is Indian as made in India with an Indian style blade but I don't see it as an Indian Kukri.

Miguel......"early tourist kukri (1920-40) Northern India"

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by estcrh

From what I have observed there are two types of Indian tiger tooth jambiya, and they are a type of jambiya....one type has a thick blade and the tang is also thick.

Don't get too caught on about the thick and thin tangs that you presented and I think thick and thin would also need to be quantified.
There is certainly age between the examples presented here but the tangs on those noted as thick are not actually seen, what is seen is a grip strap.
With consideration to weapons typically found with grip straps, Kilij, Yataghan, Khyber knives etc, for the most part, the grip slabs are pinned through the tang but sit well clear of the tang and the tangs on these weapons are no thicker than any other weapon of the time place or period.
I am certain there are variances in thickness with age, but I do not believe it is all that vast at all.

Gavin

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Gavin Nugent

Don't get too caught on about the thick and thin tangs that you presented and I think thick and thin would also need to be quantified.
There is certainly age between the examples presented here but the tangs on those noted as thick are not actually seen, what is seen is a grip strap.
With consideration to weapons typically found with grip straps, Kilij, Yataghan, Khyber knives etc, for the most part, the grip slabs are pinned through the tang but sit well clear of the tang and the tangs on these weapons are no thicker than any other weapon of the time place or period.
I am certain there are variances in thickness with age, but I do not believe it is all that vast at all.

Gavin

Gavin, maybe I should have said that I have never seen a tiger tooth jambiya without a grip strap that had a wootz blade, I believe that the examples I posted that I described as being "thin" have no grip strap. You have certainly seen more examples than I have, do you remember ever seeing one of the lower quality ones with a wootz blade?

[Miguel]

I do not remember seeing another one like yours, either the blade or hilt. If I run into one I will post it here.

Cheers.
Miguel