Afghan/Khyber Knife
 

Hi
As Afghan/Khyber things seem to be to the fore at the moment I thought this may be of some interest. O.A. length 18 1/4 inches blade length 12 3/4 inches with bone scales. As you can see the sheath has seen better days.
Regards,
Norman.

Hi Norman

Good khyber knife!

Hi,
Thank you for your interest. I think this is probably a 19thc piece, have you any thoughts?
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi.
I think you're right and this is the middle - late 19th century

Hi Norman,
This is an honest khyber, no faking here. Regretfully those Pashtuns virtually never put the date on their weapons, and there are no objective features by which we can date them. So we can only look at the condition and guess. 1840? 1940? 1980? There are pics from the times of recent Russian occupation showing mujaheddins brandishing khybers. Field conditions determined everything. Fourty years of sun, rains,cold, heat are more than enough to age and degrade all organic materials. Yours has worn out scabbard, but the sword itself is in a very good condition and although blade was cleaned from patina, the bone handle is white.I wouldn’ t hazard a guess about its age, but it doesn’t matter much: it is a true fighter that was meant to kill, not to hang on a wall.
Enjoy!

Hi Guys,
Thanks for your insights. I have attached a few more photos. The scales are not as white as they appear, more yellow in hand (my poor photography no doubt!) I have attached a photo that may give a better sense of scale. It's a big old knife more dirk sized. Thanks again.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hello Norman,

Looks like walrus to me...

Elegant blade and length at the shorter range of the spectrum.

Regards,
Kai

I don’t think it is a walrus. It is very possible that it is a camel.

Camel, horse, cow, but not walrus or elephant.
It is a Khyber, only short. Stone mentions blade length between 14-30". I have one ( wootz) with the blade of 11.5", one 16" and one 34.5". They were handmade and there were no prescribed dimensions. Whatever the owner wanted.
The difference between them and ch'hura is that the latter has a sudden narrowing of the blade right at the ricasso and narrowing further to a needle point : ch'hura is a purely stabbing weapon, khyber ( selawa) is a slashing/stabbing one, kind of like a Bowie. You certainly can put it in a dirk category.

The surface of the camel's bone is covered with a dense grid of small parallel strokes. There are similar strokes on the bone surface of cows and buffaloes, but this grid is much wider.

Ren Ren - funny name you have chosen - my name is Jens, but never mind.
What I would like to know is, why do you think is is from a camel? Could it not be from a cow, or from another animal?

Hi Jens! My own name is Sergey :D and I know that it is even funnier for English-speaking people. I took the Ren Ren nickname many years ago at the Sinologists forum, where I was led by interest in Chinese weapons. In Chinese 刃人 means Blademan.

I do not insist that it is certainly a camel bone. To confirm this, I need to see the object with my own eyes. But looking at the photo it seemed to me that a dense grid of small parallel cracks is present. And I wanted to draw attention to this. First of all, the attention of the owner of this nice khyber knife.

1. I would test the blade for wootz.
2. Generally camel bone is the material of choice for hilts (but also for other artifacts) because it has higher density and is much less affected by the spongy structure of the cow/buffalo bone.

The blade looks well-polished and ready for etching: it will take very little time and effort and no harm will be done. Although I wouldn’t bet on finding wootz.

Ren Ren - thanks for the explanation :-).


It is said that African ivory was prefered to Indian ivory, as it was harder, and camel bone would be even harder, but do you know if camel bone was used often for hilts?

Hi,
Some close-ups of the hilt which may help. Looking at the blade with a loupe I don't see anything to indicate to me that it might be wootz.
Regards,
Norman.

I agree it's not a walrus or an elephant, either. The handle is made of bone from the leg of a hoofed animal (cow, buffalo or camel)

Even I can see that now - I am glad to say - but does anyone have a guess from which animal it could be?

Indeed dates are always very speculative.

I've a very fine wootz Choora named and dated to 1901 with a sheath in of similar manufacture... I personally find the weapons from the region the hardest to date accurately.

Gavin

Hi Jens
I am a biologist by profession and work at the Museum of Natural History. One of the collections that I oversee (keep) in the museum is a collection of osteology (that is, a collection of bones) :)
I wrote a guide to identify bones and horns in items (including on the handles edged weapons). If we are talking about the leg bone of an animal that was used in some kind of artifact (for example, a hilt), unfortunately, it is impossible to visually identify this animal to a species.
But I like Ren Ren's idea of bone thickness.

I talked to the masters of bone carving. They spoke about the intricacies of the choice of bones of ungulates intended for carving. Bulls older than 4 years old and old cows that stopped feeding milk for 2 years (calcium from the bones partially passes into milk) gives excellent bone quality. Today, industrial methods are used in agricultural production - almost all bulls aged 2 years are sent for meat, cows are sent for processing immediately after they stop giving milk. The bones of such bulls and cows are of poor quality and significantly lose to the bones of camels. Therefore, for about 30-40 years, camel bones are very popular among carvers and knifemakers. But I have never heard that a camel’s bone is superior in hardness to an African elephant’s ivory.

Thanks for these pics, Norman!
They reinforced my opinion that the hilt of your knife is made of camel bone.

It is difficult to argue with a recognized specialist in the field of osteology. :) But I'm not trying to argue. I propose once again to pay attention to the structure of the camel's bone (especially with a longitudinal section). It was once difficult to distinguish ivory from an elephant and from a mammoth ;)

P. S. Mahratt spoke very modestly about himself. He is not only the curator of the collections of the Museum of Natural History, but also an expert whose help leading museums and government agencies seek.

Ren Ren, thank you for the explanation, which I find quite interesting.
I admit that I was guessing, when I wrote that camel bone was harder than ivory.

That is why I said that I like your idea. :)

Thank you for your words :) I considered it not modest to write this information about myself ;)

Arms and armour collectors are not stupid brutes in fact... interesting....
:) :)
Kubur

I would like to correct anatomical error in the description of walrus tusk written in the book on identification of various osteological materials. The author calls the inner marbled ( oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) part of the tusk a " pulp". It is not a pulp. Pulp of any tooth is a soft living tissue located in the middle of the tooth and composed of arteries, veins, nerves and some supporting soft tissue. It is locates in the so-called " pulp cavity" that originates at the basis of the root and disappears completely well before the tip of the tooth. It provides nutrients to the cells lining the dentine that are responsible for tooth growth. When we have root canal procedure, the pulp is what is removed by our endodontists:-((( The jello-like consistency of the pulp makes it absolutely unsuitable for any practical use in the process of carving.


Walrus tusk is a modified canine tooth. Its outer layer is enamel, that is worn off at a very young age. Underneath is cementum, also thin and flaky material that is removed by the carver. The rest of the tusk consists of dentine and this part is used for carving purposes. The outer layer of the dentine is homogeneous (primary dentine) and the inner part ( secondary dentine or osteodentine) is exactly the one that is erroneously called " pulp" in the book.
You can look it in the CITES book
https://www.cites.org/sites/default/...vory-guide.pdf
and in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services book
https://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php

Also, a pic of the cut across the tusk:C- cementum, PD- primary dentine; SD - secondary dentine. Right in the center we can see a dark irregular structure, the final remnant of the pulp.

Thus, when we discuss walrus ivory, let's use correct anatomical terminology.

Thank you very much for the valuable addition taken from the CITES website.
In Russian (and the book is written in Russian for Russian-speaking specialists), the inner (oatmeal-like, granulated etc.) at the same time, the hard part of the walrus fang is called "pulpa".
If I decide to make an English version of my book on the definition of osteological materials, I will definitely describe the structure of the walrus fang, as is customary in the English scientific literature :)

Hi Kubur! You touched a painful point :) :)
For the sake of justice, I must say that I have met several such collectors. But they collected regular army items ;) never ethnographic arms.

You are trying to wiggle out of the obvious error on your part. It ain't gonna happen: in Russian, as in every other language pulp is the soft content of the inner tooth cavity ( blood vessels, nerves etc) and is a separate entity from dentin. It pertains to every species with teeth: humans, walruses, elephants, cats etc. Basic anatomy from my first year of medical school:-)
For your benefit I am attaching a slide from a Russian source with Latin names for different tooth components ( for the benefit of other Forumites). If you do not trust it, you can consult any Russian book on anatomy or dentistry or Google it in Russian.
Just admit your goof, say thank you and that's it. The more you try to dig yourself out , the deeper you get.

"Ethnographics" are usually not brutes, but stupidity among them is of the same incidence as in general population or collectors of regulation weapons. They are usually more arrogant, because there are no regulation standards, and they are free to make statements on the basis of their opinions, not on officially recorded facts.
Well, as any negative trait, it can have some good in it: replace arrogance with perseverance:-)

Between arrogance and stupidity, I choose arrogance :)

Dear friend, I see you try to be "have a finger in every pie" all the time, if it concerns my messages. It really flatters me :)
There are many specific linguistic circulation in the Russian language that you are not familiar with due to the specifics of your profession. This is normal. You can’t know everything. But this is not scary. We are all learning.
I did not say anything about the structure of the tooth. Therefore, you put a picture in the subject in vain :) I spoke of the fact that in Russian, among specialists, a certain part of walrus fang is called “pulpа” and this has nothing to do with ordinary tooth pulp. The same part of the tooth is also called "scadra". There is no such word in English at all.
So you don’t have to try to seem smarter than it really is :) You are already a smart enough person. Nevertheless, do not try to be an expert in all sciences. Otherwise, you will look stupid.

I propose to continue the discussion of the Khyber knife of Norman. Of course, if someone can say something new.

P.S. I must add that the manuscript of the book has a positive response from a leading specialist in Russia, who specializes in tusks of elephants and mammoths, as well as walrus fangs, an expert from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation;) This review was published at the beginning of my "Guide to Osteological Materials".
But, probably, you know more than this respected specialist :)

Please teach me: post a scan from a professional Russian publication where walrus dentin is called “pulp”.
I shall be grateful for any new info about knowledge of elementary histology among academic Russian anatomists or dentists:-)))

How did you write when you were asked a similar question in Russian forum, asking to scan just a couple of pages from the right book? If my memory serves me: "Is every hour of my time very expensive?" It seems you said that an hour of your time costs $ 500? :) Perhaps I should give a link to this message of yours so that everyone knows that I am not inventing, but telling the truth? What do you think?

Of course, my time is not so expensive, but I also appreciate my time. Nevertheless, I am not so arrogant and will answer you.

I did not write about academic publications (please quote me if I am wrong), but I told about special terms that are common among specialists who oversee collections of bone products (walrus fangs, elephant and mammoth tusks, camel leg bones, etc.) in museums and similar organizations, as well as among those people who now make bone products (bone carvers). And I wrote that you may not know about these specific terms
Of course, if you communicate with biologists who are specialists in the study of walruses, they will use other terms. However, I think there are no such people among the forum participants :) My book on the definition of osteological materials was not written for specialists in the study of walruses, but for museum workers who store products from animal bones and for collectors. As you requested, I attach a scan from the book in the subject, with a description the walrus fang. Especially for you, I highlighted the word "pulpa". Forum participants who speak Russian will confirm that my words correspond to what is written in this book.
I hope now that I have satisfied your curiosity, we can return to the discussion of the Khyber knife ;)

Thank you.
I got it: the term “ pulp” is an internal lingo of the carvers and traders of walrus tusks , i.e. people having no knowledge of, and no interest in correct terminology. Among themselves they could have used “Shadra” or ”thingamajig” to the same effect. But no professional anatomist or dentist would even dream about confusing pulp with dentin, wouldn’t you agree?
In other words, you relied on the information obtained from popular sources and did not verify it by consulting proper professional ones. It’s a pity: your book was supposed to reflect the official view of a respectable museum of natural history and as such adhere to the universally accepted scientific terminology.

If you ever republish it, even in Russian, my advice would be to correct the goof. And go through the entire book with a fine-tooth comb: where there is one error, there must be more.

With best wishes.

BTW, you do not have to post my earlier fees: since the original exchange my honoraria went up:-)

You are welcome.

You probably don’t know that there is a different terminology related to different areas of science :) In addition, the Russian language is very rich (has a wide variety of words) and the same subject can be called in several terms, depending on where it is used.
I’ll explain again, because I see that you did not understand. If my book were addressed to dentists or biologists who specialize in the study of walruses, then I would use other terms to describe the structure of the walrus fang. But since the book is addressed to museum staff and collectors, I used the official terminology, which is accepted among them. I hope you now understand and we can finish this discussion;)

I'm glad I can teach you something new. With best wishes.

P.S. By the way, I think you should start advising someone to correct something in books related to arms and armor, as well as artistic and decorative items, after you write your "ideal book" ;)

Ariel, do you imagine a situation in which a specialist in Latin philology begins to correct medical and biological terminology? :D
Any terminology is only an auxiliary tool that allows you to transfer information among specialists with minimal loss of meaning. And only within the circle of these specialists can it be recognized as right or wrong.

Bravo, Ren Ren. Absolutely for sure :)

It is not a question of philology: it is a question of correct terminology. Calling secondary dentin a pulp is fundamentally incorrect: those are different parts of a tooth, with different location, structure, consistency and function. This is not “ the minimal loss of meaning”: it is a total one.
The level of writing depends on the audience: if one addresses tusk carvers, one can use their lingo, but in a supposedly professional book one should use professional terms. Carvers would look totally befuddled if one asks them about secondary dentin; professional biologists would not be able to understand how one can carve anything from a thin layer of a viscous pulp.

So the question is: was the book a professional publication of a respectable museum of biology or a popular brochure aimed at the makers and buyers of carved trinkets? It is the “either/or” distinction. If the latter, I shall withdraw my objection. But then, the museum and the author should not advertise it as a scientific publication.