Hi Kubur,
I agree with Teodor. This knife IMHO has no regional connection with the one which a started this thread which has I think been positively identified as originating in Arabia. My pick as to origin of your knife would be Nepal/Tibet judging purely by the decoration.
Stu

Hi Stu,
I might have been mistaken as I was thinking that people decided that Cameron, Egerton and the MET were wrong. I think provenance was right Nepal/Tibet.
For Teodor Yes and No, these knives have some similarities if not they were not discussed together...

You are right - they are superficially similar, but at the same time completely different. If you were trying to show that there is a type of knife from Nepal/Tibet that may be confused for a shafra, and that Egerton's plate shows such a knife, and not a misidentified shafra, I think you have demonstrated that point pretty convincingly.

Regards,
Teodor

Hi,
I missed this one and arrived when the verdict is already out.
Just a small detail to add. Notice that the shafra in Egerton's illustration has a very different decoration - more like those of Artzi's examples and Kubur's second example. So this reference was not very valid to begin with.

Further, the use of old metal files, probably European in origin, is very common in Middle Eastern daggers. If it really had to cut, this was often the toughest and best quality steel available.

Lastly, I have written in my post to the "Old Khyber" thread that it is often problematic to rely on 19th c authors because the notion that knowledge should be based on facts was not yet universal. Reasoning and authoritative opinions were often preferred. That is how the Shafra and the Yatagan came to be Nepalese weapons: single-edge+forward curve=Kukri or something from Nepal. Mistakes happen, but the problem is that they were presented with authority, copied without checking by later authors and still torment us today.

Beautifully summarized! I cannot agree more.

But a bigger problem is that not only we continue to rely on the opinions of the past, but that some contemporary colleagues create new misconceptions using the same principle. This was exactly my beef with the notion that a strange (unusual, atypical) object is necessarily a fake in the absence of hard facts. Or, in reverse, that some objects accepted by the “authorities “ as ancient may in fact be newly-made.

Elgood’s re-dating of Indian weapons was based on meticulous analysis of archive documents, not on parroting Pant, Fiegel and Rawson. Re-dating of shashkas was based on hard facts of old church frescoes, not on poor translations of some travel diary.

I do hope Motan is right and the fact-based approach is taking over, although I am sad to see that the old “ herr professor” one is still alive and kicking.