Guys,
I am not being provocative. On the contrary, I am saying that in the absence of hard facts ( aluminum on a presumably 17 century sword, plastic handle, engraving with contemporary motives etc) unusual swords and daggers should not be officially labeled as “fake”. There is such thing as presumption of innocence:-)
Unusual things challenge our current knowledge: have we missed something? We may thus engage in a search for potential gaps in our knowledge. But on top of it, swords mutated, better communications introduced exchange of forms, techniques and decorations. Trade blades were ubiquitous: European blades were sold to Sudan, Arabia and North Africa, Daghestanis sold their blades to Arabia, Indian and Persian blades were dime a dozen in Afghanistan, Oriental blades were sold in Europe. We see Philippine Barongs with Chinese hieroglyphic marks: Chinese exported them there in quantities. Trophies made “chimeric” weapons: British blade with Indian handle, Indian blade with British handle, Khanda blade with Georgian handle.
Could this Khyber blade with the etching been made in Persia in the middle of 19 century and sold in Afghanistan where a local handle was attached to it? It is a distinct possibility: why wouldn’t Persian smiths cease an opportunity to make a buck? After all, they sold quantities of sophisticated wootz Shamshir blades with engraved, chiseled and koftgari Persian inscriptions there anyway, why not make a simple Khyber blade and add a cheap etching to it?
My point is, we cannot automatically assume that strange is fake. We may not like what we see and not buy it, but in the absence of hard evidence ( Marius’ example of horimono) we may want to suspend our negative judgement.
|