Wootz afghan knife for komments
 

Hi everyine.
One week ago I got the wootz knife, I believe of Afghan Origin.This is not a pesh kabz or karud. I wonder if this knife has its own name.

I once had an Afghan knife with a similar handle. The spine of the knife's handle was below the spine of the blade. What is it? The peculiarity of the handles of knives of a certain people?

Have a look here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...5&postcount=17

As you can see from Detlef's message, the first one is a Pesh-kabz. It is a rather unusual variety but it certainly displays all the features of the Pesh-kabz. The blade is almost certainly Indian.

The second one I would call a "Karud." The name "Karud" refers to a straight-bladed Pesh-kabz and it might be simply a misnomer derived from the Persian "Kard."

Detlef, mariusgmioc thank you for reply. So that is nevertheless pesh-kabz. And what about the handle? For what people or region is it typical? I suppose the origin of such a handle is somewhere in Afghanistan.

Yes, I would agree by this statement! :)

As far as I remember, these strongly recurved examples and reinforced tips with sharp edges on both sides were called Zirah Bouk: mail piercers. You can Google the images. Pesh Kabz are as a rule ( or exclusively) single edged.
I am not exactly enthusiastic about the handles, especially on the second one: they look like crude replacements ( from the active life of the dagger, most likely).

However, for Zirah Bouk such blades are not quite typical. I mean the T-shaped spine of the blade. As for the hilt, on the karud (the second knife) the hilt in my opinion was really replaced in a later period. But the first knife most likely was made from the very beginning with such a handle.

T-spine?
Here are Zirah Bouks with it.

Glad we agree on the second dagger's handle. As to the first one, IMHO it is also not original, but this is merely my IMHO, And even if this Zirah Bouk was born with this handle, the blade is also not typical. But who said that Indian bladesmiths always rigidly followed some ministry-approved patterns and never ventured into a little bit of improvisation? Look at Khybers length, geometry ( straight, curved, recurved), handles. Bladesmithing was not an industrial operation: different masters with different skill levels, from different tribes and villages had a general gestalt of a weapon and let their fantasies run wild.
One googles " zirah bouk images" and finds everything and anything.


In my book it is a Zirah Bouk:-)

Ariel, you're right. I was wrong about T-type back of Zirah Bouk. it's not unusual. However, for me there is still a question: which people which region did the handles of this type belong to?

Hello Ariel,
In my opinion, all the knives you show in your posting are clearly Pesh-kabz.
It is very common for Indian Pesk-kabz to have a strengthened tip.
My two cents... :shrug:

PS: Please note that the knife in question does NOT even have a strengthened tip but a clipped tip! So, in my oppinion, a Zirah bouk is out of the question.

Hello, Marius

I think you are right. Here is a typical Zirah Bouk. As you can see, T-spine of Zirah Bouk - it's unusual:

That is EXACTLY what I know to be a Zirah Bouk!

Thank you for the excellent examples!
:)

Marius:
Well, please feel free to believe what you want.
One can selectively choose ones with T-spine or equally selectively choose ones without it and proclaim them either rare or commonplace.
The fact is simple: there were Zirah Bouks with T-spine; thus, its presence does NOT define them as NOT Zirah Bouks.
The funny thing that two of my examples are from the same source you liked so much, i.e. Artzi Yarom’s site and labeled there as ... Zirah Bouks:-))))


Rumpel9:
This is a $64,000 question.

Afghanistan’s weapons are a huge morass: no records, no academic studies, very few info from the Brits.

I am sure that even modern Afghanis do not know. At least I asked my ex-fellow to check for me ( he is from Pakhtunkhwa and his wife is a native Pushtun), and his brother-in-law who is in charge of the military museum in Pakhtunkhwa went over their records and found no information. His father, a history professor there was equally not helpful.

I cannot imagine any respectabe researcher who values his life going to Afghanistan these days. And if one does, the information in the local archives will amount to nothing.

The void cannot be filled or, even worse, is free for plundering by any self-promoting illiterate with itchy fingers and an access to the Internet.

Which is a pity: Afghani swords and daggers are extremely complex, interesting and steeped in history. They are by far the least known and researched traditional Indo-Persian weapons. Misinterpreting them in all their richness on the basis of shoddy "research" would be an unfortunate thing.

Dear Marius. I'm glad that there are people who know how to think for independently. Facts are better than empty words :)

http://www.oriental-arms.com/search....&s.x=16&s.y=13

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1966

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=896

Of course, the two daggers are very similar. On the other hand, it seems to me that only a beginner who studies Oriental daggers will say that they are the identical :)

Dear rumpel9 .

I think it does not matter how this knife was called in Afghanistan. In different parts of the country, wazir, afridi or gilzai could call such a knife differently. The main thing is that now it will not be a mistake if we say that this is Pesh Kabz.

...or Zirah Bouk.
See Artzi's examples ## 5886 and 7961.
Also, see one from the Met: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/31537 ( Stone's bequest).
Although Artzi, G.C. Stone and curators at Met are just the beginners, they are not so bad:)

The clue to identifying what was called Zirah Bouk is not in the T-spine, or blade form ( straight, recurved), but in massively swollen reinforced tip, just like in your first example. Its very function gives rise to its name: Zirah Bouk is Farsi " mail piercer". You can see Stone's book or Elgood's Glossary in his " Rajput arms and armour" and read how these "beginners" define it.

Dear Marius.

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong (I know English badly). But, it seems to me that it is very difficult to confuse the words "Pesh Kabz" and "Zirach Bouk" ... And I see that the respected Artzi, at objects numbers 5886 and 6971 wrote: "Pesh Kabz". Maybe I have problems with vision ???? I worry....

Gents,

We are again getting into the frustrating game (for observers) of "what's in a name." If you want to know Artzi Yarom's opinion, ask him. As best I can tell, Artzi numbers his items sequentially as they enter his inventory. Thus, lower numbered items seem to have been acquired earlier than higher numbered items. He uses the term pesh kabz for the earlier items and zirah bouk for the later ones. It appears he changed his mind over time about what to call them, and more recently favors zirah bouk. That's an assumption on my part, but ask him.

Ariel makes a cogent argument for zirah bouk, based on the Persian term for "mail piercer." That seems pretty convincing to me.

Ian.

Thank you for a good example. This - Zirah Bouk. But not Pesh Kabz. I think now everyone can see the difference :)

Dear Ian.

Here is what Artzi writes, in the description of objects 5887 and 7961, calling them Pesh Kabz:
"The last 2 ½ inches are swollen to a heavy diamond cross-section tip in a typical Zirah-Bouk (Mail Piercer)". By the way, the term "mail piercer" is written on the website of Artzi :)

That is, it's Pesh Kabz with a point like Zirah Bouk.

But, of course, it is ideal to ask the opinion of the highly respected Artzi.

Look, please, here are these items:

http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=4441
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2199
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2942
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=896
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=5642
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1907
http://oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=1491

Probably, following the opinion of the respected Ariel, all these daggers should also be called Zirach Boke? They all have - massively swollen reinforced tip (larger or smaller):

Hello guys,

Now this is a very interesting discussion.

My oppinion is quite simple: it is not the shape of the tip that defines the knife!

From all I know, "zirah bouk" means "armour piercer." This term has become associated with some typically Indian knives characterised by their massively strengthened tips. However, that does not mean that every knife that has a strengthened tip is a Zirah Bouk.

There can be Kards (see the first photos attached), Khanjars, Jambiyas and Pesh-kabz with strengthened tip, but they still remain Kards, Khanjars, Jambiyas or Pesh-kabz.

Using the example below, I believe that it will be at least confusing if not incorrect to call the knife in the photo "Zirah Bouk" only because it has a strengthened tip. However, we can call it a "Kard" with zirak bouk (or armour piercing) tip.

The same goes with the Pesh-kabz.

So I believe Mahratt's/Artzi's point is correct.

PS: Please note that the first knife in the original posting DOES NOT HAVE A STRENGTHENED TIP, but a clipped tip. Thus, I believe it will be an error to even mention the term "zirah bouk" in its name.

Marius,
Please read my post carefully: “ massive reinforced tip”.
Your example has a tiny pimple, no more. It is most likely a tourist version, totally unsuitable for the job of armor/ mail piercing. Just like some examples shown by Mahratt.

Unless my eyes deceive me the original example shown by Rumpel9 has “ massive reinforced tip”. So it qualifies according to the definition of Stone, Elgood and Artzi. Perhaps the owner, Rumpel9, can tell us whether I am wrong about this feature. If the blade is not significantly reinforced in its terminal half/third but flat and plain throughout, I would admit my error.

The blade is just recurved, so I am also puzzled by your use of “ clipped”. You may use this term if you wish, but again it does not make a difference: see my post again, where I mentioned the irrelevance of the blade geometry ( straight, recurved), a feature not even mentioned by Stone and Elgood. In Artzi’s collection # # 1405 and 12604 are almost straight, and he still calls them ZB.

So, what is the purpose of this discussion/argument? To reach a correct conclusion or to inflate egos? If the latter, I am out. I am too old to need proving myself.

It is interesting, what armor in the 19th century could be pierced in Afghanistan? :) I think hardly anyone will disagree that the dagger in question is dated to the middle (and this is at best) or the late 19th century ... It is enough to examine the old photographs and engravings to make sure that at this time mail armor in Afghanistan was a rarity.

Ordinary Pesh Kabz with a faceted point. Like this:

Marius, I think you're absolutely right. Here's another Kard.... or Zirah Bouk? ;)

http://armsandantiques.com/19th-c-wo...-dagger-id1134

Moderator's warning!
 

Gentlemen:

This is deteriorating into another "it is/it's not" argument about names. These discussions are tedious and unattractive. I will close the thread and issue suspensions without further notice if you persist.

Ian.

Dear Ian.

The discussion is not just about "it is / it's not" about names. We are talking about terminology, and this is very important for any fan of ethnic weapons. And it seemed to me that the discussion was quite correct and calm.

But, of course, if you insist, I - am silent.

Best Regards

Hello Ian,

Can you please be more specific as to what's wrong with this discussion?!
Is it in any way violating the rules of this forum?
Did I or somebody else do or said something wrong? :shrug:

I found the discussion interesting.

Regards,

Marius