Go on...show us your Choora!!

[mahratt]

Thank you for the nice words about the formulation of the blade choorа.

You can see in the figure from the catalog Egerton T-shaped cross section of the blade? Or Egerton somewhere wrote about T-shaped cross section of the blade knife № 624?

The handle of the Egerton's example is not identical to the handles of Afghan classical Chooras. This is evident if you look closely the picture. It looks like only the overall shape. You do not know that in India there were other knives with a narrow (thin) handles?

I understand that everyone sees what he wants to see But it is worth a closer look.

[David]

The Egerton sketch is a rather small and simple line drawing with relatively little detail. The reason that people can see what they want to see in it is simply because there is not enough actually there to see in the first place. I would suggest that you gentlemen move on and find another point to politely debate about.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by David

The Egerton sketch is a rather small and simple line drawing with relatively little detail. The reason that people can see what they want to see in it is simply because there is not enough actually there to see in the first place. I would suggest that you gentlemen move on and find another point to politely debate about.

Thank you, David.

That's what I said. It will be wrong to build the findings, considering the small image.

[Jim McDougall]

As far as I can see, what Mahratt and David are saying is entirely key....the Egerton example is an impressive line drawing from pre 1885 of what he describes as a 'pesh kabz'. As noted by Mahratt, there are no indications of this having a T spine either in the drawing nor the caption text. It is important to note that Egerton's art work seems to include these kinds of features where applicable in other examples of arms.

In Egerton 617, a dagger also termed 'pesh kabz' is shown, the blade does reveal the T shaped back which as usually seen on Afghan arms includes the device termed 'calyx' which is a kind of palmette. Here we see in the hilt the 'Afghan' style rather a birdhead profile, and notably with the cleft.

These Afghan weapons seem to typically have what appears to be a lanyard loop at the pommel in location much like a capstan.

In my view, much of this 'debate' seems to, as reluctantly we appear to recognize, based on terminology, with 'choora' reference to what appears to be a variation of the spectrum of North Indian/Afghan/Persian daggers.

As seen in Egerton, the term 'pesh kabz' is entered, but as far as I can understand, this term applies to the 'khanjhar' hilt form of recurved Indian daggers with profound Persian influence. While the pesh kabz is of course recurved, the 'choora' appears to be a straight blade version.
In my perception , both daggers in Egerton (617, 624) both named pesh kabz, are in actuality 'KARUD' variations . While 624 has the more dramatic pommel projection, the hilt is flat, not clefted as most karud. The blade has no spine noted, and is without the more pronounced contour.

In 617, the blade also has more the subtle contour (as Karud) as well as the T spine, calyx assembly, and the notable cleft.

These features of karud are reflective of the close association with the of course larger 'siliwar' or 'Khyber knife' which is distinctly Afghan.

While Burton and Egerton apparently knew the term 'chura', but as seen in Egerton, the term does not appear to have been 'formally' used but more colloquial (more diminutive for smaller knife?) and for daggers of karud form broadly termed 'pesh kabz' in these times.

Though I realize that the 'name game' is often rather scornfully endured in many circumstances in ethnographic cases, it is well known that terminology, semantics, transliteration and perceptions often lead to these kinds of 'debates'. We know that Egerton was the 'culprit' in the misapplication of the term 'katar' to the well known transverse grip dagger actually termed jamadhar.

I think we have established that at some point, probably early in the 19th century, these T spined straight versions of pesh kabz, and closely aligned with their usually heftier cousins, the karud, appeared in Afghan regions (northernmost India in the broad case then).

Afghan 'armourers', nor the itinerant craftsmen such as Lohar, who situated throughout Afghan tribal areas, did not use pattern books, and as can be seen by Khyber knives, karud, and other forms, the variation spectrum is reasonably broad.

These matters are I think best to continue considering, and to be observed constructively as this 'discussion' moves forward, and I for one look forward to that considering the knowledge and experience here. I always learn from you guys!! and my observations are what I can derive from what resources I have. All of you have hands on experience with actual examples.



***addendum:
On p.108 Egerton, he describes several knives en suite as ch'hurri, and these are from Ulwar (in Rajasthan) . This of course lends to the colloquial use in Hindi perhaps to the smaller size usual in these daggers.

[David]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Thank you, David.

That's what I said. It will be wrong to build the findings, considering the small image.

Mahratt, considering it was you who brought this sketch into the discussion in the first place and that you were only just a couple of posts ago using it to try to advance your own theories and belief i find this last statement of yours quite amusing.
Again, i suggest that we leave this Egerton sketch behind and move forward with this discussion in a civil, good-spirit manner that seeks supportable evidence without prejudice and leaves far behind whatever petty scrabbles you and Ariel may have had on this subject somewhere on some Russian language forum.
That or the moderation team will unfortunately shut this discussion down.

[mahratt]

David, I'm glad that I can amuse you.

When I brought this sketch, I showed the shape of the blade, which is clearly visible. (The remaining fragments in the figure can not be seen).

But I brought this image, after about him said Ariel, assuming this is an important fact (post number 90):

[QUOTE=ariel]
Egerton shows a Choora in his book ( #624, Plate XIV) and gives Bannu as its origin: current Edwardsville, Pakhtunkhwa, The Pakistani part of the Khyber Pass) . Regretfully, Mahratt refuses to see a Choora in it :-)
[QUOTE]

I violated some rules of the forum? Show me, please, where exactly I committed a violation, that I do not repeat their mistakes.

Thank you.

[Jim McDougall]

Good point Mahratt on that the Egerton example is designated as Bannu, which if I am not mistaken is the same region as where the hafted axe (of zaghnal form) which is termed a 'lohar' is from. As I mentioned in my previous post, possibly the itinerant artisans who often crafted these might have developed the smaller version of karud which appears to have become colloquially known as 'choora'?

I think this might be pertinent, and hope you and the others here might express your views if my idea is possibly plausible.

All best regards,
Jim

[David]

Originally Posted by mahratt

I violated some rules of the forum? Show me, please, where exactly I committed a violation, that I do not repeat their mistakes.
Thank you.

I have not singled you out specifically Mahratt for any particular violation. However both you and Ariel are dancing dangerously close to the border of the very first rule of these forums, "Be nice and respect your fellow members."
There is more written underneath that heading, a portion of which reads:
"Flames or insults are strictly against the rules. If you disagree with another member's point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. Civility and respect towards other participants are unconditionally expected.

If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it. If you feel you must respond to a flame or insult directly, please do NOT do so on the board - use private messages or e-mail."

If this rule had been more blatantly violated this thread would already be closed. You gentleman have been skirting dangerously close with the tone of your debate. My comments about thread closure is intended as a pre-emptive measure. I suggest you both take heed and adjust the direction of these discussions.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by David

You gentleman have been skirting dangerously close with the tone of your debate. My comments about thread closure is intended as a pre-emptive measure. I suggest you both take heed and adjust the direction of these discussions.

David,

I would be grateful if you tell me exactly what kind of my words were on the brink of "Flames or insults"? You can quote these my words? This will help me to avoid violations.

Thank you.