Go on...show us your Choora!!

[mahratt]

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]

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

[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?

[ariel]

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]

Originally Posted by ariel

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.

Very strange ... The longitudinal fibers are seen well, although exactly there more hand contact. Their cross, where hand contact less-section is polished so that nothing is visible?

In the Horn of rhinoceros we always clearly visible longitudinal section of a special "drawing".

[ward]

I think mahratt is correct to a point. You have not translated what else it says so have no context that this is a date. It could easily mean that it was the 1854 piece they made, maybe it was remembering his grandfather's death. It seems strange that it in western characters and dating while the rest is not. If it says this was made under the ruler whomever, or if it was collected by lord so and so at that date you would have a lot stronger case. As to the paper being added the afghans are notorious for mixing old and new items together. The piece might be that old but Ariel you are far from proving it. I think this debate is one of the more interesting ones I have read.

[Ian]

Mahratt and ariel:

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to venture some observations based on ariel's pictures to date (acknowledging that they are incomplete and not very clear).

First, like Jens, I think the scabbards and wood show age and are consistent with items I have handled from the middle of the 19th C--and that observation is confirmed by ariel's historical consultant.

Second, the papers glued to the scabbards appear to have been there for a long time. They show defects adjacent to old deterioration of the leather covering the wooden scabbards. These defects in the leather show wear and rubbing, suggesting they are not recent, and the paper matches that damage well.

Third, I believe at least one of the inscriptions is a date because I think I can read "JANUARY 1 /, 1854." The first three letters of JAN seem clear and the rest of the month is indistinct. The following number (below the name of the month) could be a "1" or "3," then a slash, comma and 1854. All of this is in English and consistent with the Scottish auction provenance that ariel provided. As ariel's consultant has already determined, the handwriting is consistent with an early 19th C English style (possibly older), but we don't know the age of the person who wrote it. It seems reasonable to conclude, however, that the handwriting is consistent with having been written by an adult in the mid-19th C, and therefore consistent with the date on at least one of these choora scabbards.

Fourth, the remaining text on these papers is not written in English or a language that I recognize. What the language of this writing may be seems an important clue to the puzzle. Much of the inscriptions are faded or missing, which will make translation difficult even if we can find someone who can read it. There are photographic techniques and other methods used by professionals specializing in antique documents that will enhance faded writing, and these might be useful here. Perhaps forumites reading this thread will be able to suggest resources who could help with that.

Lastly, if I had been shown just these knives and their scabbards (without any attached documents), my estimated age would have been second half of the 19th C. That would have been my best guess. If they turn out to be older than that, then it would not surprise me very much. If they are actually of early 20th C manufacture, then I would be more surprised.

Let's hear what the professional experts have to say about the inscriptions and the likely age of these two knives.

Great topic!

Regards,

Ian.

[ariel]

Mahratt,
Why are you so nervous?
On what grounds do you call these labels a fake?

You might be right, and the handle may not be a rhino one. This is exactly why I am making arrangements to show it to an expert. But this is an aside and bears no influence on the main question.

The important thing is the age.

David has already agreed with the idea of the "19th century". Please stop adding more and more unrelated verbiage and images and let other Forumites express their opinions.

Thanks.

[ariel]

Ward, thank you.
These labels were examined by a person fluent in both Urdu and Pashto.
This is Pashto. However, he was unable to make sense of any other textual snippets with the exception of a very tentative "Mohammed" on the better preserved one. Also, these labels were examined by the Curator of the Islamic Manuscripts collection in the Dept. of Restoration. She pointed out to some numbers in the right upper corners of both labels. According to her, they represent typical archival entries ( accounting entries, collection entries, documents rosters etc, etc.) on old Indian/Afghani documents , including 19th century.

Dr. Baker examined not only the composition of papers and inks, but also assessed the potential age of paper, leather and wood. This is something she was trained to do, deals regularly with, presented multiple lectures all over the world and published papers about. In a way, this is identical to how the conservators and restorers examine and assess book bindings.

As a professional book/binding restorer, she dated the paper/wood/leather complexes as compatible with mid 19th century or earlier and definitely older than 20th century. She maintained this conclusion even without taking the numbers 1854 and 1840 into account. Simply by the state of the materials. And she had the advantage of actually handling these objects and doing her traditional tests on them.

Should we accept the testimony of an expert witness or dismiss it?

The labels had to be attached to the scabbards after the manufacture of these chooras and aged in parallel with them from there on. The estimates of their age as mid-19th century, therefore, give the absolutely latest date of their manufacture, and this is the reason why they may be even older.

You are correct: this is the most unexpected and fascinating discussion we have had in a very long time. We are dealing here with dating an old weapon using a completely novel and hitherto never used approach. Fifty years ago the idea of using DNA samples as a method of finding an accused guilty or innocent would have been viewed as totally crazy:-)

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,
Why are you so nervous?
On what grounds do you call these labels a fake?

You might be right, and the handle may not be a rhino one. This is exactly why I am making arrangements to show it to an expert. But this is an aside and bears no influence on the main question.

The important thing is the age.

David has already agreed with the idea of the "19th century". Please stop adding more and more unrelated verbiage and images and let other Forumites express their opinions.

Thanks.

Ariel, my friend, and who of us nervous? I just express my assumption. Please quote, where I said that your "labels" - a fake?

I am delighted that David has agreed with you. That is his right. And my right to express my opinion on your version of the "19th century". The pictures are just pertain to the topic of discussion. It is strange that you do not want to see. And let's not plugging each other's mouth. You express your opinion in the forum of items, and I express my opinion.

[mahratt]

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.