silver mounted file knife

ariel · 12th September 2019, 11:22 PM

Reliance on Egerton’s book is overrated.
Let’s not forget that he was tasked to write a catalog of collection he himself did not assemble. He had to rely on notes from multiple British military and civilian personnel serving for the East India Company. Likely, many of those were not collected by them, but were “second hand” objects with very uncertain provenance.
The same plate showing this knife and titled as weapons of Nepal, contains image of an Ottoman yataghan. How did it get there we can no longer know.

On the other hand, in the catalogue of his own collection Egerton is meticulously clear as to the provenance and the date / place of acquisition of weapons bought personally by him.

motan · 15th September 2019, 10:40 AM

Hi,
I missed this one and arrived when the verdict is already out.
Just a small detail to add. Notice that the shafra in Egerton's illustration has a very different decoration - more like those of Artzi's examples and Kubur's second example. So this reference was not very valid to begin with.

Further, the use of old metal files, probably European in origin, is very common in Middle Eastern daggers. If it really had to cut, this was often the toughest and best quality steel available.

Lastly, I have written in my post to the "Old Khyber" thread that it is often problematic to rely on 19th c authors because the notion that knowledge should be based on facts was not yet universal. Reasoning and authoritative opinions were often preferred. That is how the Shafra and the Yatagan came to be Nepalese weapons: single-edge+forward curve=Kukri or something from Nepal. Mistakes happen, but the problem is that they were presented with authority, copied without checking by later authors and still torment us today.

ariel · 15th September 2019, 12:44 PM

Beautifully summarized! I cannot agree more.

But a bigger problem is that not only we continue to rely on the opinions of the past, but that some contemporary colleagues create new misconceptions using the same principle. This was exactly my beef with the notion that a strange (unusual, atypical) object is necessarily a fake in the absence of hard facts. Or, in reverse, that some objects accepted by the “authorities “ as ancient may in fact be newly-made.

Elgood’s re-dating of Indian weapons was based on meticulous analysis of archive documents, not on parroting Pant, Fiegel and Rawson. Re-dating of shashkas was based on hard facts of old church frescoes, not on poor translations of some travel diary.

I do hope Motan is right and the fact-based approach is taking over, although I am sad to see that the old “ herr professor” one is still alive and kicking.

12th September 2019, 11:22 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Reliance on Egerton’s book is overrated. Let’s not forget that he was tasked to write a catalog of collection he himself did not assemble. He had to rely on notes from multiple British military and civilian personnel serving for the East India Company. Likely, many of those were not collected by them, but were “second hand” objects with very uncertain provenance. The same plate showing this knife and titled as weapons of Nepal, contains image of an Ottoman yataghan. How did it get there we can no longer know. On the other hand, in the catalogue of his own collection Egerton is meticulously clear as to the provenance and the date / place of acquisition of weapons bought personally by him.

15th September 2019, 10:40 AM	#2
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	Hi, I missed this one and arrived when the verdict is already out. Just a small detail to add. Notice that the shafra in Egerton's illustration has a very different decoration - more like those of Artzi's examples and Kubur's second example. So this reference was not very valid to begin with. Further, the use of old metal files, probably European in origin, is very common in Middle Eastern daggers. If it really had to cut, this was often the toughest and best quality steel available. Lastly, I have written in my post to the "Old Khyber" thread that it is often problematic to rely on 19th c authors because the notion that knowledge should be based on facts was not yet universal. Reasoning and authoritative opinions were often preferred. That is how the Shafra and the Yatagan came to be Nepalese weapons: single-edge+forward curve=Kukri or something from Nepal. Mistakes happen, but the problem is that they were presented with authority, copied without checking by later authors and still torment us today.

15th September 2019, 12:44 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Beautifully summarized! I cannot agree more. But a bigger problem is that not only we continue to rely on the opinions of the past, but that some contemporary colleagues create new misconceptions using the same principle. This was exactly my beef with the notion that a strange (unusual, atypical) object is necessarily a fake in the absence of hard facts. Or, in reverse, that some objects accepted by the “authorities “ as ancient may in fact be newly-made. Elgood’s re-dating of Indian weapons was based on meticulous analysis of archive documents, not on parroting Pant, Fiegel and Rawson. Re-dating of shashkas was based on hard facts of old church frescoes, not on poor translations of some travel diary. I do hope Motan is right and the fact-based approach is taking over, although I am sad to see that the old “ herr professor” one is still alive and kicking.