Afghan Pulowar blade type?

ariel · 24th July 2016, 02:35 PM

This is true Jim: Afghanis were trying to mass produce their traditional Khybers at the Mashin Khana and to give them some European look( D guard). The upper one you have shown is an example. At the same time the mass-produced ones started using cheap materiel, - wood, - for the handles and got rid of any artistic elements present at the older handmade one. In a way, it was similar to what happened with Caucasian shashkas: the Russians appropriated it as their regulation weapon and modified it to the point of converting a beautiful native weapon into pretty ugly European-looking saber without the handguard ( the only homage to the original Caucasian inspiration in addition to the imitation of an eared pommel).

But the last one you have shown that was also carried by Yakub Khan has nothing to do with the Khyber: both the handle and the blade are European, and the blades on different examples were of a variety of patterns, none of which had anything to do with the original Khybers. The Yakub Khan's one was in existence well before the establishment of Mashin Khan. Those were just colonial models.

There was no evolution of Khybers : just a short-lived and unsuccessful attempt at mass production. And the purported "final step" of the presumed evolutionary process had nothing to do with the original model. As they say: true, true and unrelated.

mahratt · 24th July 2016, 08:29 PM

This is called - look but do not see.

I have to repeat again, Yakub Khan sword is different from the regulation Khyber knife. And I wrote about it in the article:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber

"Evolution" regulation Khyber knife is not only to acquire the shackle guard.

But numismatists - can not understand ...

ariel · 24th July 2016, 09:20 PM

Well, I just have to draw attention of any interested Forumite to :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber

Posts ##11 and 12.

In the first one, the author shows 3 Afghani swords, from a mass-produced industrial copy of a real native khyber, with a typical blade and slightly modified handle down to the one with a typical British colonial handle and a European ( or, at the very least, Europe inspired) blade. The author then presents these models as " transitional steps in the evolution of the Khyber from Ethnic to the Regulation"

In the next post, the same author proposes to re-name " the Afghan Military Sword to Afghan Military (or Regulation) Khyber".

I think the message of the treatise was perfectly clear and unequivocal. The author was, indeed, within his rights to propose this classification. This does not mean that others have no right to question his conclusions.

I would submit that we are talking about 2 different items: attempted industrial modification of the native Afghani Khyber on the one hand and an unrelated short sword of a European pattern. The only thing that somehow may put them in the same box is the fact that all of them are short-bladed sidearms.

I am also slightly confused about the "numismatics" remark: does the author have any coins to bolster his conclusions? I'd love to see them.

Jim McDougall · 24th July 2016, 09:47 PM

Its always good to revisit old threads often even years later, as our knowledge base and ongoing research often offers new perspectives.
This is especially the case with knowledgeable and specialized writers such as Ariel and Mahratt, and I can only present my own understandings of the article and these weapons.

From what I learned, the sword worn by Daoud Shah in the 1879 photo was key in looking into the potential development of the Afghan 'regulation' short sword of the 1890s into around 1900+. Actually the only suggestion of regulation propriety was made by Oriental Arms at some point years ago and now notes misplaced.

What was significant was the appearance of the hilt on his sword which had slotted guard and rolled back terminal near pommel. Since this was 1879, and he certainly had the sword for a nominal period prior, we wonder if this suggested a larger presence of these type hilts pre Mashin Khana. While that state arsenal began in Kabul in 1887, tooling and production began in the early 1890s. My example of one of the 'regulation short swords' is dated 1893 if I recall.

The Dauod Shah sword seems to have a solid grip hilt, unlike the Mashin Khana examples which are admittedly workmanlike and austere. I would submit here that the primary arms production of the Mashin Khana was fireams, specifically current issue Enfields, and note the compelling appearance of these 'regulation' hilts to that of 'sword' bayonets.

The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife.
The text of the article addresses this comparatively, but does not mean to suggest that the tribal form of Khyber ('silawar') was 'regulation' BUT that it was contemporary to the production military type short swords which ostensibly were.

The example of the 'colonial' hilt worn by Daoud Shah was the key instance in the search for the development of this hilt form, which was indeed European IN FORM but clearly was produced in Afghan or local regions.

I could find no evidence of this kind of military hilt in either British production sources (including Enfield who indeed did import in degree from Solingen) nor the German sources.

I think the 'nusimatic' reference had to do with study on the Mazir i Sharif or Royal state stamp or device, which was keyed on the coins of the time. The presence of these stamps on both 'regulation' military form swords as well as on examples of the tribal Khybers with military hilts, was instrumental in establishing probable dates for examples in this study.

The term 'Khyber' was used mostly as an implied vernacular term for the military type short swords in tandem with the concurrently used tribal versions with the same hilt.

There is no known existing 'regulation ' for the military type Mashin Khana short sword, any more than any established for the use of the term 'Khyber' for the tribal swords which are actually known locally as 'siliwars'.
Further they are not KNIVES nor YATAGHANS!

Therefore the study aims to show more of a colloquially termed pairing of these edged weapons in their Afghan context of the times.

ariel · 24th July 2016, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife.
.

Exactly my point. The article was carefully researched and the description of the actual objects was exemplary. However, it was based on a wrong premise, tried to forcibly prove an incorrect hypothesis and inevitably reached a wrong conclusion.
There was no evolution. It was not even parallel development ( if by that we mean independent creation of virtually identical constructions). We are talking about 2 different short sidearms present in Afghanistan at the same time period.

ariel · 24th July 2016, 10:05 PM

The variety of Afghani short sabers was very wide: the blades, the handles, the manner of carrying.
They were no more "regulation" than khybers of different varieties, and the name of those was legion:-)

Jim McDougall · 24th July 2016, 10:43 PM

Thank you for the additional images Ariel.

I would like to note that I personally feel responsible in the case of the titling and premise of this article. Actually I participated in editing and constructing the text of the original article which was written by Mahratt, at his request as he was concerned with semantics and language issues.
As I had researched these swords many years before, I should have been able to suggest revisions in the overall premise and text, but being impressed with the volume and character of his research and work inadvertently did not.

In all, as noted previously, the Khyber short swords were not regulation in the true sense, simply notable present in consistency in military context.
The traditional Khyber was interpolated in the mix, with the expected array of variations in all of these in a colonial setting.

The article in and of itself, still carries an impressive insight into the Anglicization of Afghan edged weapons of these times, and the use of the royal arsenal stamp and Mashin Khana factory.

Here, I would suggest we leave the Khyber sword and knife aspects and return to the paluoar as in the original post.
This deviation in the discussion does serve as interesting perspective with associations to the paluoar as these weapons were all contemporary and truly offers certain dimension to the times and place where these were used.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 24th July 2016, 11:24 PM

Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !!

Ibrahiim al Balooshi

ariel · 24th July 2016, 11:43 PM

Jim,
I also feel in part responsible: at Mahratt's request I translated this essay into English. I also did not provide my comments about its fatal logical error. Sorry.
There is a lesson for both of us: if we are asked to assist in any way to a young and academically-inexperienced Forumite, we should not be shy to offer constructive critique. The same applies to all our comments: it is not productive just to applaud politely but insincerely: the whole purpose of intellectual exchange is in perfecting a worthy message and rejecting wrong conclusions.
Learning is possible only if a learner is willing to listen to critique and accept it. It would be nice to learn from somebody else's mistakes , but realistically it is our own ones that give us real knowledge and understanding. Some people do not take well to criticism ( no matter how polite and constructive it might be), and those, IMHO, are hopeless.

But back to the Pulouars ( dang, what is the right way to spell this word?:-))))

Here is my other one: brass-inlaid handle, groove-less blade with no Indian ricasso, but with wootz and unusual scabbard stitching: teeny-tiny nails.

24th July 2016, 10:05 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	The variety of Afghani short sabers was very wide: the blades, the handles, the manner of carrying. They were no more "regulation" than khybers of different varieties, and the name of those was legion:-) Attached Images

24th July 2016, 11:24 PM	#8
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Salaams all....I have to say that the gooseneck finial at the top of the knuckleguard is the same style as the finial on the so called Pseudoshashka !! Ibrahiim al Balooshi Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 24th July 2016 at 11:50 PM.

24th July 2016, 11:43 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jim, I also feel in part responsible: at Mahratt's request I translated this essay into English. I also did not provide my comments about its fatal logical error. Sorry. There is a lesson for both of us: if we are asked to assist in any way to a young and academically-inexperienced Forumite, we should not be shy to offer constructive critique. The same applies to all our comments: it is not productive just to applaud politely but insincerely: the whole purpose of intellectual exchange is in perfecting a worthy message and rejecting wrong conclusions. Learning is possible only if a learner is willing to listen to critique and accept it. It would be nice to learn from somebody else's mistakes , but realistically it is our own ones that give us real knowledge and understanding. Some people do not take well to criticism ( no matter how polite and constructive it might be), and those, IMHO, are hopeless. But back to the Pulouars ( dang, what is the right way to spell this word?:-)))) Here is my other one: brass-inlaid handle, groove-less blade with no Indian ricasso, but with wootz and unusual scabbard stitching: teeny-tiny nails. Attached Images Last edited by ariel; 24th July 2016 at 11:54 PM.

24th July 2016, 02:35 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	This is true Jim: Afghanis were trying to mass produce their traditional Khybers at the Mashin Khana and to give them some European look( D guard). The upper one you have shown is an example. At the same time the mass-produced ones started using cheap materiel, - wood, - for the handles and got rid of any artistic elements present at the older handmade one. In a way, it was similar to what happened with Caucasian shashkas: the Russians appropriated it as their regulation weapon and modified it to the point of converting a beautiful native weapon into pretty ugly European-looking saber without the handguard ( the only homage to the original Caucasian inspiration in addition to the imitation of an eared pommel). But the last one you have shown that was also carried by Yakub Khan has nothing to do with the Khyber: both the handle and the blade are European, and the blades on different examples were of a variety of patterns, none of which had anything to do with the original Khybers. The Yakub Khan's one was in existence well before the establishment of Mashin Khan. Those were just colonial models. There was no evolution of Khybers : just a short-lived and unsuccessful attempt at mass production. And the purported "final step" of the presumed evolutionary process had nothing to do with the original model. As they say: true, true and unrelated.

24th July 2016, 08:29 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	This is called - look but do not see. I have to repeat again, Yakub Khan sword is different from the regulation Khyber knife. And I wrote about it in the article: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber "Evolution" regulation Khyber knife is not only to acquire the shackle guard. But numismatists - can not understand ...

24th July 2016, 09:20 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, I just have to draw attention of any interested Forumite to : http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...regular+khyber Posts ##11 and 12. In the first one, the author shows 3 Afghani swords, from a mass-produced industrial copy of a real native khyber, with a typical blade and slightly modified handle down to the one with a typical British colonial handle and a European ( or, at the very least, Europe inspired) blade. The author then presents these models as " transitional steps in the evolution of the Khyber from Ethnic to the Regulation" In the next post, the same author proposes to re-name " the Afghan Military Sword to Afghan Military (or Regulation) Khyber". I think the message of the treatise was perfectly clear and unequivocal. The author was, indeed, within his rights to propose this classification. This does not mean that others have no right to question his conclusions. I would submit that we are talking about 2 different items: attempted industrial modification of the native Afghani Khyber on the one hand and an unrelated short sword of a European pattern. The only thing that somehow may put them in the same box is the fact that all of them are short-bladed sidearms. I am also slightly confused about the "numismatics" remark: does the author have any coins to bolster his conclusions? I'd love to see them.

24th July 2016, 09:47 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,299	Its always good to revisit old threads often even years later, as our knowledge base and ongoing research often offers new perspectives. This is especially the case with knowledgeable and specialized writers such as Ariel and Mahratt, and I can only present my own understandings of the article and these weapons. From what I learned, the sword worn by Daoud Shah in the 1879 photo was key in looking into the potential development of the Afghan 'regulation' short sword of the 1890s into around 1900+. Actually the only suggestion of regulation propriety was made by Oriental Arms at some point years ago and now notes misplaced. What was significant was the appearance of the hilt on his sword which had slotted guard and rolled back terminal near pommel. Since this was 1879, and he certainly had the sword for a nominal period prior, we wonder if this suggested a larger presence of these type hilts pre Mashin Khana. While that state arsenal began in Kabul in 1887, tooling and production began in the early 1890s. My example of one of the 'regulation short swords' is dated 1893 if I recall. The Dauod Shah sword seems to have a solid grip hilt, unlike the Mashin Khana examples which are admittedly workmanlike and austere. I would submit here that the primary arms production of the Mashin Khana was fireams, specifically current issue Enfields, and note the compelling appearance of these 'regulation' hilts to that of 'sword' bayonets. The title of the article uses the term 'regulation Khyber knife' and development. Actually the article, excellent in its content, describes more the concurrent use of these distinct parallel slotted guard 'military' hilts on both the 'regulation' short sword AND its tribal cousin the KHYBER knife. The text of the article addresses this comparatively, but does not mean to suggest that the tribal form of Khyber ('silawar') was 'regulation' BUT that it was contemporary to the production military type short swords which ostensibly were. The example of the 'colonial' hilt worn by Daoud Shah was the key instance in the search for the development of this hilt form, which was indeed European IN FORM but clearly was produced in Afghan or local regions. I could find no evidence of this kind of military hilt in either British production sources (including Enfield who indeed did import in degree from Solingen) nor the German sources. I think the 'nusimatic' reference had to do with study on the Mazir i Sharif or Royal state stamp or device, which was keyed on the coins of the time. The presence of these stamps on both 'regulation' military form swords as well as on examples of the tribal Khybers with military hilts, was instrumental in establishing probable dates for examples in this study. The term 'Khyber' was used mostly as an implied vernacular term for the military type short swords in tandem with the concurrently used tribal versions with the same hilt. There is no known existing 'regulation ' for the military type Mashin Khana short sword, any more than any established for the use of the term 'Khyber' for the tribal swords which are actually known locally as 'siliwars'. Further they are not KNIVES nor YATAGHANS! Therefore the study aims to show more of a colloquially termed pairing of these edged weapons in their Afghan context of the times.

24th July 2016, 10:43 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,299	Thank you for the additional images Ariel. I would like to note that I personally feel responsible in the case of the titling and premise of this article. Actually I participated in editing and constructing the text of the original article which was written by Mahratt, at his request as he was concerned with semantics and language issues. As I had researched these swords many years before, I should have been able to suggest revisions in the overall premise and text, but being impressed with the volume and character of his research and work inadvertently did not. In all, as noted previously, the Khyber short swords were not regulation in the true sense, simply notable present in consistency in military context. The traditional Khyber was interpolated in the mix, with the expected array of variations in all of these in a colonial setting. The article in and of itself, still carries an impressive insight into the Anglicization of Afghan edged weapons of these times, and the use of the royal arsenal stamp and Mashin Khana factory. Here, I would suggest we leave the Khyber sword and knife aspects and return to the paluoar as in the original post. This deviation in the discussion does serve as interesting perspective with associations to the paluoar as these weapons were all contemporary and truly offers certain dimension to the times and place where these were used.