[Jim McDougall]

I must say I very much admire the empirical approach taken by Ariel toward the analysis of these examples and their associated labels. However, I am not sure that findings pertaining to these labels would add to supporting the proper dating of them. As has been noted, these might refer to any number of notations or data. With the materials, again, these would not necessarily pertain ...it must be remembered, ethnographic weapons were constantly refurbished and recycled, and tags or labels may have been adjoined to the item at any point in its holding.

Then there is the red herring matter of the 'choora' itself, which lends more to a 'name game' which plagues identifying ethnographic forms. It would seem that we can establish the 'term' choora from at least the mid to third quarter 19th century as both Burton and Egerton use it loosely. When trying to link it directly to a distinct form, it remains unclear and even Egerton (pl.XIV, 624) is identified as 'pesh kabz', yet has rudimentary appearance of a 'choora' in our parlance.

In reviewing Torben Flindt's excellent work on Bukharen arms (1979) he notes this narrow straight back, T blade with radius to sharp point blade as a 'karud' (p.23). He never uses the term 'choora' in his work.

Here we enter the slippery slope of terminology with pesh kabz (typically recurved sharp point); karud (a heavier blade and hilt, rather a smaller 'Khyber' knife..but with the narrower blade also in degree per Flindt); and the 'choora' (which term is notably absent from Flindt).
Mr. Flindt also notes that neither he nor Elgood could derive the origin of the term karud, but presumed perhaps from the Persian 'kard', yet another form in this group.

It would seem to me that these various forms evolved rather concurrently in these Central Asian regions, and most likely in very similar styles from as early as latter 18th century of course through 19th. Tribal arms are of course typically not dated, nor recorded as far as form, so chronological evolution of a particular form is extremely unlikely without categoric provenance. Also is the matter of regional and often tribal preference, which means that the variations we find in these weapons is more often probably lent to those factors than to any developmental character.

In my opinion, there is really no 'debate' here, rather some very well observed discourse which offers an excellent overview of these variations of the spectrum of Central Asian daggers used from easily 19th century into the 20th.
As far as dating each item, it is more to its own merits and comparable motif and decoration than to an overall form and specific term.

I think it would be interesting to look further into the presence of the cleft in the pommel of Khyber knives (seylaawa) of the 'sword' size, their smaller counterparts 'karud' and apparently some of these 'choora' (pesh kabz).
It would seem this may derive at least partly or perhaps wholly from the distinctive Bukharen sabres (Flindt .p.23) which developed independently from the shashka form in the Caucusus though the cleft is compellingly similar. The influences of Persian arms of course notably present here, thus filtering into Afghan (N. India) regions.
I notice that the cleft is absent in some of these 'choora' etc. and perhaps we might look more to that feature in determining any consistancies.