Go on...show us your Choora!!

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?

Jim McDougall · 8th June 2015, 04:40 AM

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. We know that Egerton completed much of his research long before his publication in 1885, probably as early as the 1850s.
The well examined labels on the two examples indicating dates of 1854 and 1840 certainly suggest that period hosted daggers of this form presumably in Afghan regions.

Regardless of what term is used to describe these daggers, it seems that we have established mid 19th century as a viable terminus ante quem for this form. As I suggested, the form most likely had been around some time before that as we have no indications these are prototypes.

The reason the etymology issue was mentioned is because it seemed the prime purpose in these discussions had become what the earliest date might be for this form dagger (typically termed choora). The fact that these, along with karud and pesh kabz seem to have become collectively a group of variants with the terms referring to them somewhat intermingled.
Thus the point was that establishing a distinct terminus ante quem for this specific form beyond what has been shown with these examples is unlikely unless others are found with equally documented and analyzed labeling reflecting earlier dates.

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"?

ariel · 8th June 2015, 05:14 AM

Mahratt,
Thank you .
1. Yes, you totally misunderstood Ian's remark. Few of us are known to be fluent in multiple languages, so don't worry

2. If you can provide expert testimony of an equally-qualified individual who had an opportunity to examine these daggers personally, I will consider it very seriously. In the absence of such an examination and expertise in the history of paper products, I hesitate to take the opinion of your colleague as a professional evidence.

3.See #2

4. Please read the very first sentence of Jim's last comment.

I would also like to remind you that each and every "choora" was hand made, and there were rather significant variations in the details of each and every component: blade, handle and scabbard.

As an example, please look at the 2 "chooras" that I brought to this discussion. The bigger one has a blade that is identical to your example, but a different handle, the smaller one has a blade that is virtually identical to the Egerton's example, but a handle different from the other 3. Hope you finally agree with the images. This also gives an answer to your query in post #91:
"Does anyone of you knowledge of chooras in museum collections, which became a museum exhibit before 1900?" The answer is resounding Yes, South Kensington Exhibition of the India Museum, starting at 1880.

In a way, this entire discussion with expert testimonies, details of paper technology etc, etc. was superfluous: suffice was to consult Egerton's book and the answer was clear: " chooras" existed as far back as mid-19th century. End of story.

7th June 2015, 09:08 PM	#4
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

8th June 2015, 03:18 AM	#5
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.

7th June 2015, 08:48 PM	#2
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, 03:35 AM	#6
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?

8th June 2015, 04:40 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	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. We know that Egerton completed much of his research long before his publication in 1885, probably as early as the 1850s. The well examined labels on the two examples indicating dates of 1854 and 1840 certainly suggest that period hosted daggers of this form presumably in Afghan regions. Regardless of what term is used to describe these daggers, it seems that we have established mid 19th century as a viable terminus ante quem for this form. As I suggested, the form most likely had been around some time before that as we have no indications these are prototypes. The reason the etymology issue was mentioned is because it seemed the prime purpose in these discussions had become what the earliest date might be for this form dagger (typically termed choora). The fact that these, along with karud and pesh kabz seem to have become collectively a group of variants with the terms referring to them somewhat intermingled. Thus the point was that establishing a distinct terminus ante quem for this specific form beyond what has been shown with these examples is unlikely unless others are found with equally documented and analyzed labeling reflecting earlier dates.

8th June 2015, 05:14 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mahratt, Thank you . 1. Yes, you totally misunderstood Ian's remark. Few of us are known to be fluent in multiple languages, so don't worry 2. If you can provide expert testimony of an equally-qualified individual who had an opportunity to examine these daggers personally, I will consider it very seriously. In the absence of such an examination and expertise in the history of paper products, I hesitate to take the opinion of your colleague as a professional evidence. 3.See #2 4. Please read the very first sentence of Jim's last comment. I would also like to remind you that each and every "choora" was hand made, and there were rather significant variations in the details of each and every component: blade, handle and scabbard. As an example, please look at the 2 "chooras" that I brought to this discussion. The bigger one has a blade that is identical to your example, but a different handle, the smaller one has a blade that is virtually identical to the Egerton's example, but a handle different from the other 3. Hope you finally agree with the images. This also gives an answer to your query in post #91: "Does anyone of you knowledge of chooras in museum collections, which became a museum exhibit before 1900?" The answer is resounding Yes, South Kensington Exhibition of the India Museum, starting at 1880. In a way, this entire discussion with expert testimonies, details of paper technology etc, etc. was superfluous: suffice was to consult Egerton's book and the answer was clear: " chooras" existed as far back as mid-19th century. End of story.