Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 24th July 2016, 09:20 PM

Well, I just have to draw attention of any interested Forumite to :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber

Posts ##11 and 12.

In the first one, the author shows 3 Afghani swords, from a mass-produced industrial copy of a real native khyber, with a typical blade and slightly modified handle down to the one with a typical British colonial handle and a European ( or, at the very least, Europe inspired) blade. The author then presents these models as " transitional steps in the evolution of the Khyber from Ethnic to the Regulation"

In the next post, the same author proposes to re-name " the Afghan Military Sword to Afghan Military (or Regulation) Khyber".

I think the message of the treatise was perfectly clear and unequivocal. The author was, indeed, within his rights to propose this classification. This does not mean that others have no right to question his conclusions.

I would submit that we are talking about 2 different items: attempted industrial modification of the native Afghani Khyber on the one hand and an unrelated short sword of a European pattern. The only thing that somehow may put them in the same box is the fact that all of them are short-bladed sidearms.

I am also slightly confused about the "numismatics" remark: does the author have any coins to bolster his conclusions? I'd love to see them.

24th July 2016, 09:20 PM	#61
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, I just have to draw attention of any interested Forumite to : http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber Posts ##11 and 12. In the first one, the author shows 3 Afghani swords, from a mass-produced industrial copy of a real native khyber, with a typical blade and slightly modified handle down to the one with a typical British colonial handle and a European ( or, at the very least, Europe inspired) blade. The author then presents these models as " transitional steps in the evolution of the Khyber from Ethnic to the Regulation" In the next post, the same author proposes to re-name " the Afghan Military Sword to Afghan Military (or Regulation) Khyber". I think the message of the treatise was perfectly clear and unequivocal. The author was, indeed, within his rights to propose this classification. This does not mean that others have no right to question his conclusions. I would submit that we are talking about 2 different items: attempted industrial modification of the native Afghani Khyber on the one hand and an unrelated short sword of a European pattern. The only thing that somehow may put them in the same box is the fact that all of them are short-bladed sidearms. I am also slightly confused about the "numismatics" remark: does the author have any coins to bolster his conclusions? I'd love to see them.