Go on...show us your Choora!!

ariel · 6th June 2015, 06:48 PM

Well, after a long interruption, I want to show 2 more chooras.
The is a long friendly argument between myself and another member about the age of a choora as a pattern.
In his opinion choora appeared only in the 20 th century as a modification of Karud.

Here are two chooras bought originally at an auction in Scotland. Their scabbards are in a sorry shape, but both carry paper labels dated 1854 and 1840. The daggers and their scabbards fit each other perfectly: no doubt original.Since the daggers themselves are not dated, as usual for the Afghani stuff, I did the next best thing: contacted Dr. Cathleen Baker from the Department of Restoration and Preservation of the University of Michigan Library. She is a world-renown expert on all things printed: paper, ink, techniques, bindings etc, former President and member of the Board of Directors of professional societies in her field, and the author of books and articles on the history of printing materials and techniques.
She examined the chooras ( magnifying equipment, UV and infrared lights, some chemical analysis), and in her professional opinion the physical condition of the labels and their materials ( papers, inks) are compatible with the mid-19th century or earlier, and incompatible with 20th century.

Together with the dates, this seems to clinch the issue: chooras existed in the pattern known till today even in the middle of the 19th century.

Gentlemen, I give you 2 oldest dated chooras known to man and beast :-)

And of the beasts: please look at the pics of the handle of the bigger choora: rhino?

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 07:13 PM

Dear Ariel.

No one is arguing that the very old papers. But no one can say when the papers were glued (50 years ago or 100 years ago). And most importantly, why ...

In addition, you're kind of writing in Russian forum that besides numbers (not necessarily the date) on pieces of paper are many other words that you no one could translate into English

So do not be in such a hurry, saying that these chooras 19th century.

ariel · 6th June 2015, 07:25 PM

Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times.

Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK?

As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it.

Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times.

Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK?

As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it.

Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions.

You have expressed your opinion, and I expressed my opinion. We both participants of the forum

What are the arguments? Only opinions.

And why do you need an expert to determine the horn? Suffice it to another photo of a certain angle.

ariel · 6th June 2015, 08:17 PM

Why wouldn't we both remain quiet and let the Forumites speak?

David · 6th June 2015, 08:47 PM

Just my 2 cents...
Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel.
But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding.
I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure.

So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History.

Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

ariel · 6th June 2015, 09:05 PM

I freely admit my poor photographic abilities. No offence taken. Do I blush? Yes.... :-(((
Photographing a different view of the pommel, as suggested, is impossible: it is so polished by the years of hand contact that nothing can be discerned. Personal handling by a professional is the only way.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Just my 2 cents...
Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel.
But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding.
I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure.

So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History.

Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

David, no one disputes that the paper is very old and that the paper glued for a long time (50 years is a long time, too). There is no question about the fact that it is a fake. But! 1) Ariel no has translated all the text and stopped at the numbers, which he considers dates. It is not quite correct. Maybe it's a record of the number of sheep

2) No one person does not determine exactly when the old paper was glued (50 years ago, 100 years ago or 150 years ago). And in Afghanistan, a very old paper used for household needs 40-50 more years ago. 3) It is known that the scabbard choor often papered with paper, so they came to the sword belt tight (see photo).

And another. Let's look a hypothetical situation. I have an old edition of the newspaper in 1927. And I have a knife that did in 1970. If I glue a piece of old newspaper on the knife that did in 1970, this knife will be stabbed in 1927? )

And on account of rhino horn - is online now enough people who can simply determine what kind of horn in question, if the photos will be presented in a certain foreshortening.

mahratt · 6th June 2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

And of the beasts: please look at the pics of the handle of the bigger choora: rhino?

Just horn (no rhino horn). This is a similar pattern in the Kurdish dagger.

Take a picture please, so that could be seen a cross-section fibers horns.

Gavin Nugent · 12th June 2015, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, after a long interruption, I want to show 2 more chooras.
The is a long friendly argument between myself and another member about the age of a choora as a pattern.
In his opinion choora appeared only in the 20 th century as a modification of Karud.

Here are two chooras bought originally at an auction in Scotland. Their scabbards are in a sorry shape, but both carry paper labels dated 1854 and 1840. The daggers and their scabbards fit each other perfectly: no doubt original.Since the daggers themselves are not dated, as usual for the Afghani stuff, I did the next best thing: contacted Dr. Cathleen Baker from the Department of Restoration and Preservation of the University of Michigan Library. She is a world-renown expert on all things printed: paper, ink, techniques, bindings etc, former President and member of the Board of Directors of professional societies in her field, and the author of books and articles on the history of printing materials and techniques.
She examined the chooras ( magnifying equipment, UV and infrared lights, some chemical analysis), and in her professional opinion the physical condition of the labels and their materials ( papers, inks) are compatible with the mid-19th century or earlier, and incompatible with 20th century.

Together with the dates, this seems to clinch the issue: chooras existed in the pattern known till today even in the middle of the 19th century.

Gentlemen, I give you 2 oldest dated chooras known to man and beast :-)

And of the beasts: please look at the pics of the handle of the bigger choora: rhino?

Ariel, I am using this point as a starting point for my thoughts and I'll follow through the rest of the posts as time permits and respond.

The Choora as a form, to me is clearly a 19th century creation, that's the simple part as it appears in 19th century publications, namely Lord Egerton's work.

At face value, it is hard to argue the science behind the info on the sheaths but I strongly suspect the upper one to be a later knife in that sheath.
I'd support this statement with the known WII and pre WWII period Indian knives of various forms using the same construction and material vs known old stuff.

As far as the material of the lower older one, I see goat horn under magnification.

The lower one with inserted brass pins, certainly an older Choora.

Gavin

ariel · 12th June 2015, 12:36 PM

Goat horn????

Never seen one, never thought of it.
Thanks

Andrew · 13th June 2015, 08:07 PM

I suggest all participants in this thread heed the sage advice offered by Fernando, David and Ian.

I have been busy with other pressing personal matters, but I find the on-topic posts here interesting and stimulating. Accordingly, I will likely check in frequently on the discussion. Those of you who are familiar with my approach to moderation know what to expect. Those of you who are new, well, let's just say I employ a rather...blunt form of diplomacy.

Andrew
Vikingsword Staff

Jens Nordlunde · 13th June 2015, 10:36 PM

Nice to see you here Andrew:-)
Always nice to see you - but when threads seem to run a bit out of hands, it is nice that there is an anchor man.
Jens

Andrew · 14th June 2015, 12:51 AM

Hello, my friend! Hope all is well with you and yours, Jens.

ariel · 14th June 2015, 04:51 AM

Gavin,
Thanks for your input. I am glad we are on the same page re. age of a Choora as a pattern.

I can easily see your point re. smaller choora: it is much cruder and the handle is very primitive.
However, do we really know that such village-level examples were not manufactured in the 19th century? As I mentioned earlier, there must have been local production of simple, inexpensive and replaceable knives made locally, without resorting to fancy blades and expensive materials. We see it with each and every antique oriental weapon.

Egerton, in his comment to #750 mentions Ch'hura, a " strong, heavy knife" made in Khorassan, Kandahar and Jellalabad. Did he have in mind a Choora as we refer to it in this discussion or a Khyber Knife? We will never know, because the main item he described ( #750) is an unquestionable Khyber. However, he mentions Ch'hura in the same breath, as a separate example. Most importantly from my perspective is the mention of both local and imported examples. There mush have been gradations of quality. Pure IMHO :-)

My Pakistani fellow contacted his father-in-law who is a language professor in a small university in Pakhtunkhwa and his friend, a colonel in Pakistani military, who has connections in the Military Museum in Rawalpindi. Regretfully, contacts with Afghani specialists are not possible now.....

6th June 2015, 06:48 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, after a long interruption, I want to show 2 more chooras. The is a long friendly argument between myself and another member about the age of a choora as a pattern. In his opinion choora appeared only in the 20 th century as a modification of Karud. Here are two chooras bought originally at an auction in Scotland. Their scabbards are in a sorry shape, but both carry paper labels dated 1854 and 1840. The daggers and their scabbards fit each other perfectly: no doubt original.Since the daggers themselves are not dated, as usual for the Afghani stuff, I did the next best thing: contacted Dr. Cathleen Baker from the Department of Restoration and Preservation of the University of Michigan Library. She is a world-renown expert on all things printed: paper, ink, techniques, bindings etc, former President and member of the Board of Directors of professional societies in her field, and the author of books and articles on the history of printing materials and techniques. She examined the chooras ( magnifying equipment, UV and infrared lights, some chemical analysis), and in her professional opinion the physical condition of the labels and their materials ( papers, inks) are compatible with the mid-19th century or earlier, and incompatible with 20th century. Together with the dates, this seems to clinch the issue: chooras existed in the pattern known till today even in the middle of the 19th century. Gentlemen, I give you 2 oldest dated chooras known to man and beast :-) And of the beasts: please look at the pics of the handle of the bigger choora: rhino? Attached Images

6th June 2015, 07:25 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Mahratt, you have your opinion about dating chooras, I have mine, and we have discussed it many times. Why wouldn't we put our differences aside and let the Forumites decide for themselves whether they view expert opinion sufficiently convincing. OK? As to the origin of the handle, I am making arrangements to take it to our Museum of Natural History and have the real experts look at it. Meanwhile, the Forumites are free to express their opinions. Attached Images Last edited by ariel; 6th June 2015 at 07:40 PM.

13th June 2015, 08:07 PM	#12
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Moderator Comment I suggest all participants in this thread heed the sage advice offered by Fernando, David and Ian. I have been busy with other pressing personal matters, but I find the on-topic posts here interesting and stimulating. Accordingly, I will likely check in frequently on the discussion. Those of you who are familiar with my approach to moderation know what to expect. Those of you who are new, well, let's just say I employ a rather...blunt form of diplomacy. Andrew Vikingsword Staff

6th June 2015, 07:13 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	Dear Ariel. No one is arguing that the very old papers. But no one can say when the papers were glued (50 years ago or 100 years ago). And most importantly, why ... In addition, you're kind of writing in Russian forum that besides numbers (not necessarily the date) on pieces of paper are many other words that you no one could translate into English So do not be in such a hurry, saying that these chooras 19th century.

6th June 2015, 08:17 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Why wouldn't we both remain quiet and let the Forumites speak?

6th June 2015, 08:47 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,250	Just my 2 cents... Clearly these papers have been attached to these sheaths for a very long time. If this was an attempt to deceive about the age of these sheaths it would be a very good forgery indeed. Better, sharper photographs would beg helpful though, Ariel. But if we do assume that the papers were in place for a very long time i don't see that someone even 50 years ago would bother to try to deceive anyone with dates just 100 years previous. What would be the point? Ariel took the time and effort to have these papers scientifically analyzed. I see no reason, therefore, to doubt the dating of these sheaths give the age of the paper. Even if the numbers themselves do not represent dates, the paper and ink has been proven to be 19th century, so i find little to doubt with this finding. I also don't see why expert examination to determine whether or not the handle is rhino is a bad thing. Photographs can be deceptive, and if you are not too offended by this professional photographer's opinion Ariel, your photographs are just not clear enough to really determine anything for sure. So personally i would welcome your expert's testimony from the Museum of Natural History. Why would anyone not welcome such evidence?

6th June 2015, 09:05 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I freely admit my poor photographic abilities. No offence taken. Do I blush? Yes.... :-((( Photographing a different view of the pommel, as suggested, is impossible: it is so polished by the years of hand contact that nothing can be discerned. Personal handling by a professional is the only way.

12th June 2015, 12:36 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Goat horn???? Never seen one, never thought of it. Thanks

13th June 2015, 10:36 PM	#13
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Nice to see you here Andrew:-) Always nice to see you - but when threads seem to run a bit out of hands, it is nice that there is an anchor man. Jens

14th June 2015, 12:51 AM	#14
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Hello, my friend! Hope all is well with you and yours, Jens.

14th June 2015, 04:51 AM	#15
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Gavin, Thanks for your input. I am glad we are on the same page re. age of a Choora as a pattern. I can easily see your point re. smaller choora: it is much cruder and the handle is very primitive. However, do we really know that such village-level examples were not manufactured in the 19th century? As I mentioned earlier, there must have been local production of simple, inexpensive and replaceable knives made locally, without resorting to fancy blades and expensive materials. We see it with each and every antique oriental weapon. Egerton, in his comment to #750 mentions Ch'hura, a " strong, heavy knife" made in Khorassan, Kandahar and Jellalabad. Did he have in mind a Choora as we refer to it in this discussion or a Khyber Knife? We will never know, because the main item he described ( #750) is an unquestionable Khyber. However, he mentions Ch'hura in the same breath, as a separate example. Most importantly from my perspective is the mention of both local and imported examples. There mush have been gradations of quality. Pure IMHO :-) My Pakistani fellow contacted his father-in-law who is a language professor in a small university in Pakhtunkhwa and his friend, a colonel in Pakistani military, who has connections in the Military Museum in Rawalpindi. Regretfully, contacts with Afghani specialists are not possible now.....