Anglo-Indian Knives

A. G. Maisey · 25th January 2018, 07:46 PM

Thank you for your response Kubur, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, the rationale behind the thought process that will rank one thing "better" than another.

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

This then raises another couple of questions.
In respect of the knife in post #6:-

1) what is its approximate age, and how do we know this?

2) you posit that the post #6 knife style was aimed specifically at European and British visitors to the area of production. In the case of some of the knives produced in this style, this idea of production for visitors does seem to be so, but is it true for every knife produced in this style?
If this is so, what evidence do we have that this is true?

Ian · 25th January 2018, 08:26 PM

Alan:

You raise some fundamental questions about worth. Inevitably, I think, this is largely a subjective assessment, but there are some aspects that are more objective than others. Quality of materials, expertise in construction, association with a prestigious person or important event, religious or symbolic importance, considerable age--all might add to the merit of a piece.

I think what we have in this discussion are more shades of grey. The attribution of one item to the early 19th C and others to later in that century is, IMHO, largely subjective based on assumed material component in the hilt and some decorative work on the scabbard. In my initial response to the knife in post #6 I noted that the hilt looked like jadeite. Others have said agate. Both are hilt materials on Indian knives, so it could be either. However, we see much more jadeite around, and there is a fairly common white form with greenish streaks that closely resembles the knife in question. The hilt material on that knife could also be a replacement as the profile on the hilt seems rather heavy and "bulbous."

As for the scabbard, do we really know that it came with this knife? It is a common custom, especially online lately, to marry unrelated parts in an attempt to make a piece look older/better than it is.

I think it is interesting that the British Museum has seen fit to place a couple of these knives on display of the type posted originally in this thread. Someone with curatorial experience thinks they are worthy of showing off. Which brings us back to what does "better" mean in the context of this discussion.

Ian.

Kubur · 25th January 2018, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older.
A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made.

Not all the secrets revealed in one day!

I don't think that older is always better
for example, I like knife 12, probably more than 6...
Sometimes, at least for me, aesthetic can prime.

A. G. Maisey · 25th January 2018, 08:57 PM

Ian, yes, agreed, my questions could be interpreted as worth related, but I have most definitely not related my questions to worth.

My objective is as I have stated:- I am interested in the thought processes that result in ranking something as "better" than something else.

I have no intention at all of getting involved in any discussion or debate about which of the knives in this thread is "better" than any other, I simply want to understand how people can look at a photo of something and determine that it is "better" than something else.

Kubur, as I have stated, I'm not interested in a popularity contest, my questions are simple ones, and all I'm really interested in is the way in which experienced collectors arrive at their opinions.

Ian · 25th January 2018, 09:42 PM

Sorry Alan, I did not wish to imply "worth" in terms of monetary value, but rather worth in terms of intrinsic merit or "worthiness"--i.e., what is "better" in the eye of the beholder.

A. G. Maisey · 25th January 2018, 11:24 PM

Thank you gentlemen.

Kronckew, yes, I do agree that some examples of this style of knife are of rather poor craftsmanship, and that retaining nuts on tangs and blades etched with "Victory" are hardly indicative of ethnographically accurate Indian cutlery.
Detlef has already clarified the "all" word, so that sort of limits the field a bit, but using objective comparisons, perhaps not.
Detlef also makes it clear that he has expressed a personal opinion, not an objective judgement, and from that perspective, well, we're all entitled to whatever opinion we wish to hold. But it is still interesting to try to understand what drives an opinion like this.

Ian, thank you for your clarification, yes, I did misunderstand your intent. However, if somebody thinks of something as "worthy" , how was that opinion formed? Why is it "worthy"? This is what I am attempting to try to understand.

Any of us can form an opinion, and we are entitled to that opinion, but there is always a reason for the opinion. That is what I'm trying to get at.

The responses to my initial question seem to be tending in a general direction of age and ethnicity, rather than any idea of quality of craftsmanship. For me, this is a very interesting way of thinking.

Actually, I think that possibly only Marius has tried to address my question in an analytical fashion. I did not intend to start a popularity contest as to where each knife ranked in terms of "betterness", but Marius has succeeded in giving reasons for his opinions, so he has clarified for me how he is thinking and why, and that is what I am trying to understand.

Jon MB · 27th January 2018, 09:11 AM

Dear Mr Maisey,

As you seem to have some stringent criteria for what constitutes a user-friendly description of a rational process for the evaluation of these items, it might be useful to hear about your own processes and criteria for evaluating Kris.

That would also provide a framework for other commentators to provide the answers you seek.

I agree with comments that age should not preceed quality in terms of evaluating an item, but age can be a useful thing to note during evaluation, as for example a 17th C. piece of low quality would be less likely to survive 'till now.

A. G. Maisey · 27th January 2018, 10:45 AM

Jon, I regret that I have been unable to make the objective of my questioning clear, so I will try again:-

I am not in the smallest degree interested in which of the knives shown in this thread is "best".

I am not interested in attempting to promote nor to establish any method to be used in appraisal of these or any other knives.

I am only interested in the way in which the experienced collectors who decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others reached that decision.

In fact, the two experienced people who gave the original judgement that the post #6 knife was better than all the others have already responded to my question, and in their own ways have provided very clear indications of the way in which they think.

One other gentleman gave a measured and reasoned response, and I appreciate that addition to the discussion.

My interest was in the way in which people think, my interest was not at all in the knives themselves.

As for the way in which I appraise a keris, that is a very difference game to appraising a knife such as those shown in this thread. In fact, this is far too broad a subject to be dealt with in this thread. If you care to open a thread on this subject in the Keris Forum, I am fairly confident that you will get input not only from myself, but from other people as well.

kronckew · 25th January 2018, 09:14 PM

as i have said before, i'm leery of any of these indian arms with hex nut tang terminations. i suspect they are mid 20th century at best, the ones with long ricassos with vrious simple mottos etche in and sold as middy dirks especially. i do have one, think i paid £5 for it at at a car boot sale. (flea market) the older pesh did not have these nasty rat tangs and nuts. i offer two of mne for examples below, one the green/white stone grips, the other very much similar with a proper wood grip. the jade-ish one has a field repaired scabbard, so is not a diagnostic aid, the wood grip one has a nice older scabbard. Also a smaller one with a guard that is more of a paper kinfe as it's too small to get your finger inside the knuckle bow, no scabbard.

I also last show my nutted 'naval dirk POJ (piece of junk) as a caveat. It was sold as a sikh 'kirpan'. Says 'Victory in the etched side panel of the ricasso.

25th January 2018, 08:26 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,066	Alan: You raise some fundamental questions about worth. Inevitably, I think, this is largely a subjective assessment, but there are some aspects that are more objective than others. Quality of materials, expertise in construction, association with a prestigious person or important event, religious or symbolic importance, considerable age--all might add to the merit of a piece. I think what we have in this discussion are more shades of grey. The attribution of one item to the early 19th C and others to later in that century is, IMHO, largely subjective based on assumed material component in the hilt and some decorative work on the scabbard. In my initial response to the knife in post #6 I noted that the hilt looked like jadeite. Others have said agate. Both are hilt materials on Indian knives, so it could be either. However, we see much more jadeite around, and there is a fairly common white form with greenish streaks that closely resembles the knife in question. The hilt material on that knife could also be a replacement as the profile on the hilt seems rather heavy and "bulbous." As for the scabbard, do we really know that it came with this knife? It is a common custom, especially online lately, to marry unrelated parts in an attempt to make a piece look older/better than it is. I think it is interesting that the British Museum has seen fit to place a couple of these knives on display of the type posted originally in this thread. Someone with curatorial experience thinks they are worthy of showing off. Which brings us back to what does "better" mean in the context of this discussion. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 25th January 2018 at 09:07 PM.

25th January 2018, 09:14 PM	#9
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,154	as i have said before, i'm leery of any of these indian arms with hex nut tang terminations. i suspect they are mid 20th century at best, the ones with long ricassos with vrious simple mottos etche in and sold as middy dirks especially. i do have one, think i paid £5 for it at at a car boot sale. (flea market) the older pesh did not have these nasty rat tangs and nuts. i offer two of mne for examples below, one the green/white stone grips, the other very much similar with a proper wood grip. the jade-ish one has a field repaired scabbard, so is not a diagnostic aid, the wood grip one has a nice older scabbard. Also a smaller one with a guard that is more of a paper kinfe as it's too small to get your finger inside the knuckle bow, no scabbard. I also last show my nutted 'naval dirk POJ (piece of junk) as a caveat. It was sold as a sikh 'kirpan'. Says 'Victory in the etched side panel of the ricasso. Attached Images

25th January 2018, 07:46 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,754	Thank you for your response Kubur, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, the rationale behind the thought process that will rank one thing "better" than another. So, for you, a knife is "better" if it is older. A knife is "better" if it is intended for use by people living in the area where it was made. This then raises another couple of questions. In respect of the knife in post #6:- 1) what is its approximate age, and how do we know this? 2) you posit that the post #6 knife style was aimed specifically at European and British visitors to the area of production. In the case of some of the knives produced in this style, this idea of production for visitors does seem to be so, but is it true for every knife produced in this style? If this is so, what evidence do we have that this is true?

25th January 2018, 08:57 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,754	Ian, yes, agreed, my questions could be interpreted as worth related, but I have most definitely not related my questions to worth. My objective is as I have stated:- I am interested in the thought processes that result in ranking something as "better" than something else. I have no intention at all of getting involved in any discussion or debate about which of the knives in this thread is "better" than any other, I simply want to understand how people can look at a photo of something and determine that it is "better" than something else. Kubur, as I have stated, I'm not interested in a popularity contest, my questions are simple ones, and all I'm really interested in is the way in which experienced collectors arrive at their opinions.

25th January 2018, 09:42 PM	#5
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,066	Sorry Alan, I did not wish to imply "worth" in terms of monetary value, but rather worth in terms of intrinsic merit or "worthiness"--i.e., what is "better" in the eye of the beholder.

25th January 2018, 11:24 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,754	Thank you gentlemen. Kronckew, yes, I do agree that some examples of this style of knife are of rather poor craftsmanship, and that retaining nuts on tangs and blades etched with "Victory" are hardly indicative of ethnographically accurate Indian cutlery. Detlef has already clarified the "all" word, so that sort of limits the field a bit, but using objective comparisons, perhaps not. Detlef also makes it clear that he has expressed a personal opinion, not an objective judgement, and from that perspective, well, we're all entitled to whatever opinion we wish to hold. But it is still interesting to try to understand what drives an opinion like this. Ian, thank you for your clarification, yes, I did misunderstand your intent. However, if somebody thinks of something as "worthy" , how was that opinion formed? Why is it "worthy"? This is what I am attempting to try to understand. Any of us can form an opinion, and we are entitled to that opinion, but there is always a reason for the opinion. That is what I'm trying to get at. The responses to my initial question seem to be tending in a general direction of age and ethnicity, rather than any idea of quality of craftsmanship. For me, this is a very interesting way of thinking. Actually, I think that possibly only Marius has tried to address my question in an analytical fashion. I did not intend to start a popularity contest as to where each knife ranked in terms of "betterness", but Marius has succeeded in giving reasons for his opinions, so he has clarified for me how he is thinking and why, and that is what I am trying to understand. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 26th January 2018 at 06:01 AM.

27th January 2018, 09:11 AM	#7
Jon MB Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 143	Dear Mr Maisey, As you seem to have some stringent criteria for what constitutes a user-friendly description of a rational process for the evaluation of these items, it might be useful to hear about your own processes and criteria for evaluating Kris. That would also provide a framework for other commentators to provide the answers you seek. I agree with comments that age should not preceed quality in terms of evaluating an item, but age can be a useful thing to note during evaluation, as for example a 17th C. piece of low quality would be less likely to survive 'till now.

27th January 2018, 10:45 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,754	Jon, I regret that I have been unable to make the objective of my questioning clear, so I will try again:- I am not in the smallest degree interested in which of the knives shown in this thread is "best". I am not interested in attempting to promote nor to establish any method to be used in appraisal of these or any other knives. I am only interested in the way in which the experienced collectors who decided that the post #6 knife was better than all the others reached that decision. In fact, the two experienced people who gave the original judgement that the post #6 knife was better than all the others have already responded to my question, and in their own ways have provided very clear indications of the way in which they think. One other gentleman gave a measured and reasoned response, and I appreciate that addition to the discussion. My interest was in the way in which people think, my interest was not at all in the knives themselves. As for the way in which I appraise a keris, that is a very difference game to appraising a knife such as those shown in this thread. In fact, this is far too broad a subject to be dealt with in this thread. If you care to open a thread on this subject in the Keris Forum, I am fairly confident that you will get input not only from myself, but from other people as well.