Go on...show us your Choora!!

ward · 7th June 2015, 08:27 PM

Mahratt this statement is not realistic.

All other considerations, including the subjective opinions of experts - it is almost child's play "believe, do not believe," in which there is no serious evidence. For example. I ask an expert on the tree at the State Historical Museum in Moscow (Russia). I ask him, he can visually (without complex analyzes) to determine the age of a tree, exposed to the environment? He said that no one can do it for sure.

I started college as a archeology major and dating wood is reasonably precise. You take a section of wood from that area and look at the size of the rings and the count. you cross reference this. No he probably can't just look at the tree and tell you its age.

mahratt · 7th June 2015, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ward

I started college as a archeology major and dating wood is reasonably precise. You take a section of wood from that area and look at the size of the rings and the count. you cross reference this. No he probably can't just look at the tree and tell you its age.

I apologize for my bad English. I mean, not a tree out of the forest, where you can watch the annual rings. I'm talking about the tree on the scabbard (which is exposed to the environment: wind, water, sun, and so on).

Expert (of which I spoke) works in the museum with old objects made of wood)

ward · 7th June 2015, 08:48 PM

Technically as long as you have a section with the rings on it you could, but you would have to destroy the piece. I am sure that better methods have been advanced in 30 some years. Yes I know the next argument was that the wood could have been cut at that time and used later.

mahratt · 7th June 2015, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ward

Yes I know the next argument was that the wood could have been cut at that time and used later.

Especially when you consider that the wood in Central Asia was not much.

ward · 7th June 2015, 09:08 PM

we will just have to have a difference of opinion what will lead to a decision

ariel · 8th June 2015, 03:18 AM

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.

We are not discussing the etymology of the word Choora and its applicability to the daggers in question.

Similarly, I am not entering the fray arguing about differences and similarities of Karud and Choora ( whatever they represent).

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.

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?

This will be a true academic approach.

We can also recall that a similar admonition is given by any judge to any jury:-)

ariel · 8th June 2015, 03:35 AM

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?

mahratt · 8th June 2015, 04:45 AM

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"?

Jim McDougall · 7th June 2015, 09:04 PM

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.

7th June 2015, 09:08 PM	#5
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	we will just have to have a difference of opinion what will lead to a decision Last edited by ward; 7th June 2015 at 09:12 PM. Reason: written in haste

7th June 2015, 09:04 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	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. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 7th June 2015 at 09:14 PM.

7th June 2015, 08:27 PM	#1
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Mahratt this statement is not realistic. All other considerations, including the subjective opinions of experts - it is almost child's play "believe, do not believe," in which there is no serious evidence. For example. I ask an expert on the tree at the State Historical Museum in Moscow (Russia). I ask him, he can visually (without complex analyzes) to determine the age of a tree, exposed to the environment? He said that no one can do it for sure. I started college as a archeology major and dating wood is reasonably precise. You take a section of wood from that area and look at the size of the rings and the count. you cross reference this. No he probably can't just look at the tree and tell you its age.

7th June 2015, 08:48 PM	#3
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	Technically as long as you have a section with the rings on it you could, but you would have to destroy the piece. I am sure that better methods have been advanced in 30 some years. Yes I know the next argument was that the wood could have been cut at that time and used later.

8th June 2015, 03:18 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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. We are not discussing the etymology of the word Choora and its applicability to the daggers in question. Similarly, I am not entering the fray arguing about differences and similarities of Karud and Choora ( whatever they represent). 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. 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? This will be a true academic approach. We can also recall that a similar admonition is given by any judge to any jury:-) Last edited by ariel; 8th June 2015 at 04:48 AM.

8th June 2015, 03:35 AM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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?