Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Gentlemen,
We are digressing .
The entire label with 1854 was written with the same ink and nobody ever mentioned different handwritings. I do not know where did Mahratt get this info, as it was not something told to me by the examiners and I never mentioned it to you.
|
Read post №88 respected Ian. Or have I misunderstood his words: "All of this is in English and consistent with the Scottish auction provenance that ariel provided"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
The salient point of Dr. Baker's expert opinion was that the labels were adjoined to the scabbards sometime in the mid 19th century and started to age together with wood and leather from there on. That's it. It does not depend on the text analysis of the labels or on their content. We are talking pure papyrology or whatever we want to call it.
|
Dear Ariel, no expert could not say exactly when the paper adjacent to the wood sheath (50 years ago or 150 years ago). Especially if used organic glue (and the fact that the organic adhesive - You told on Russian forum).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Can we limit our discussion to the facts we learned from the world-reknown expert in the field and ignore any extraneous issues together with our opinions, suppositions and biases?
|
Faith - is an abstract concept. You said an expert opinion. I told her expert opinion. Maybe your expert make a mistake, maybe my expert make a mistake.
We need the facts about which I spoke earlier, rather than subjective opinions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Mahratt, many thanks for providing a good view of the dagger #624 from the book by Egerton next to what we traditionally call Afghani Choora.
Now everybody can compare them easily.
Can you please explain what prompts you to believe these are different daggers?
|
Please. I always prefer to discuss openly.
Ariel, I'm surprised that you do not see the difference between the shape of the blade. I do for you part of the picture is larger (see image).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
I think we can agree that the 'Afghan dagger' illustrated in #624 of Egerton is of compelling similarity to those we term 'choora' despite being called a pesh kabz in Egerton's description.
|
I think in the case of the object Egerton we can speak of a "prototype choora", but not about "Afghan choora" that we know today.
By the way, Egerton wrote somewhere about an item №624 - "Afghan dagger"?
