[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.