Old Khyber

[ariel]

Originally Posted by motan

My 2 cents:
- The knife itself looks true to type and old, although sophisticated forgery of the whole knife, as well as later "decoration" can not be totally rejected. We will probably never know. The argument that this is not typical of Khyber knifes only means that and no more. A-typical weapons are found in all categories (like in Jimws example).



A more productive way to approach this knife would be to try to read the texts and see in what language they are written and what they say.

The inscription is in Farsi. I saw word “Allah” and am almost sure the entire text is a part of one of the Suras.
Regretfully, I discarded all other images and cannot find them. Will try more, but 99% it will be something generic and not helpful.

Motan turned this discussion into a rational direction. And Richard G’s suggestion of a Jalali calendar is appropriate accounting for the Farsi inscription and mass production of etched blades in Persia at that time.

I would like to ask a general question: on what grounds do we discard unusual objects as some kind of “fake”?
This khyber ( and right away: I did not buy it simply because it was not very interesting to me ) is indeed unusual for several reasons. But inventing stories of “souvenir”, “last 20-30 years”, “Sunni religious beliefs” is not productive. We see tons of unusual, atypical weapons, but as Motan rightfully said, this means only that they are atypical, and no more.
Shouldn’t we rely in our assessments on physical facts?
By now everybody agrees that this khyber is genuinely old. Wouldn’t it be honest to conclude that we have no idea when its blade was etched? That “1229” may be a genuine date ( even in Jalali)?

I think that a proper way of attributing and dating old weapons should be based on hard facts and not on rash personal feelings. This is how every branch of real science works.
And if we do not have facts at our disposal, we need to humbly conclude that we just cannot date an object based on the existing information instead of dumping it into a garbage bag of seller’s shenanigans. We may conclude that we do not like it, that our antennae are twitching etc., freely admit it, and no more. And not buy it. This is a realm of emotional response, but not a scientific approach.

This Forum prides itself on striving for scientific approach. Jim is a walking encyclopedia of esoteric information, Jens forgot more about Indian weapons than we all remember, Motan seriously studies shibriyas, Battara is our Moro guru, Alan knows more about Indonesian Kris than anybody I know etc, etc. ( sorry if I did not mention other people, but I had to stop somewhere:-))
Even they admit from time to time that they do not know something and cannot pass an informed judgement. Shouldn’t we all adopt a similar attitude?

“Just the facts, Ma’am!”

[mahratt]

Let's talk about the facts.

Fact number 1. There is a Khyber knife, which is original and can may dated to the late 19th - early 20th century (well, even if the middle of the 19th century) and looks absolutely typical for Afghanistan
Fact number 2. On the blade of the khyber knife there is a strange decoration, absolutely not typical for Afghanistan
Fact number 3. In Afghanistan, souvenir "old weapons" are very actively being made and truly antique weapons are being modernized (blades and other elements). Moreover, the main "modernization" is aimed specifically at decorating blades with images.
Fact number 4. Archaic societies have a hard time accepting something new. They use their usual things. Therefore, the appearance of one "unique" subject always raises questions. Especially if it has all the other features typical of the archaic society in which it was made.
Fact number 5. There are unique blades. They can be made, for example, on the border territories between two cultures. But! Then these blades have not only one feature (for example, a decorated blade). Then they differ from the “classic” ones in the shape of the blade and the handle, etc.
Fact number 6. If an object from a traditional archaic society is decorated in a technique that is not traditional for this society, and also with non-traditional decor (anthropomorphic figures), then all fantasies about its “originality” - unfortunately, will remain fantasies, until 100% confirmation of the authenticity of the "decor" is found...

I understand that each of us wants to have extraordinary items in our collection. items in which there is something exclusive (and this is not necessarily perfect condition or gold and precious stones) ...
But, as it seems to me, we should all be very careful in our assumptions, otherwise too “exclusive” items may appear in our collection:
- Bukhara shashka, which were recently made from Afghan shashkas ...
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21726
- "Balkan Kilij" of the Syrian work ...
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25209
and even - "Russian Khyber Knife" with a modern fake stamp "Zlatoust" ...
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21329

I will be very happy for the respected Ariel, if in the memoirs of English officers or in the work of some ethnographers there is a mention that they saw the blades of Afghan Khyber Knife, decorated in such a technique, and even with anthropomorphic figures. But as I understand it, while there is no such information?
In the meantime, observing the trends that have appeared on the "antique weapons fake market" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, decorated blade of this item raises at least great doubts about its authenticity.

[Jim McDougall]

It is an interesting and contentious debate as often develops here, leaving behind the plausible explanations pertaining to the circumstances of an example set here for examination.

Momentarily returning to the example originally posted here, a Khyber knife typical of mid to latter 19th century, which has clearly undergone a dramatic acid etching of its blade, profoundly atypical for these swords.....especially in the Khyber regions where they were commonly used.

Obviously this sword has at some point left its original environs and entered a new context where the styling of the motif applied characterizes the culture and tradition of those who most likely applied it.

This does not render the sword a fake, as it clearly is not, nor does it need to suggest that the decoration was spuriously applied to garner monetary value. Such 'creations' do not need such elaborate yet crudely applied application which is far too consuming for the average innovation of souk peddlers.

The nearly unbelievable price asked in the hawking of this piece only illustrates the audacity of sellers who prey on poorly informed buyers who desperately hope to find great value in exotic and unusual items.
There is an incredible gullibility out there in the vastly expanding sales venues patrons, and sadly some are sometimes well hoodwinked.

My estimation suggesting the possibility of this item having some authenticity in its current appearance as an item perhaps ending up in the hands of the Kalash people as mentioned can only remain speculative.

The rest of the debate here becomes almost philosophical, toward what determines whether a weapon is, or has become 'fake', a term extremely relative in these matters.

The elements of arms decoration as pertains to religious doctrine or rules are typically vaguely defined or understood and it is hard to strictly define decoration in such character. Often there are nominal presences of religions in syncretic circumstances with others, so variation might move in different directions.

Similarly, there are hybridized and amalgamated weapons which result from cases of either trophy items, traditional or heirloom ones, which have incongruous components used as usually ceremonial weapons. Reciting the many examples of this here would simply belabor the discussion further.

In a note regarding the so called 'Berber sabres', these were 'presumed' to be Moroccan due to numbers of them found in Morocco. As it turned out, these were taken there by conscripted forces from Spanish colonial regions in Caribbean and Central American regions during uprisings in 1920s against Spanish rule in Moroccan regions. These were found to have indigenous proclivity in the Cuban, Mexican and Central American regions and even extended to Dominican Republic. I recall the research on these begun in the late 1990s and discussions here sharing information and evidence revealing the ultimate consensus, which became generally held rather than decided.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In a note regarding the so called 'Berber sabres', these were 'presumed' to be Moroccan due to numbers of them found in Morocco. As it turned out, these were taken there by conscripted forces from Spanish colonial regions in Caribbean and Central American regions during uprisings in 1920s against Spanish rule in Moroccan regions. These were found to have indigenous proclivity in the Cuban, Mexican and Central American regions and even extended to Dominican Republic. I recall the research on these begun in the late 1990s and discussions here sharing information and evidence revealing the ultimate consensus, which became generally held rather than decided.

Hi Rick,
No problem with the Spanish origins, and later Cuban, Mexican and Dominican... Of Course.
But I strongly disagree that all the forum members agreed with your conclusions (at least Ariel and I we didn't), you have also Berber swords from South Morocco that I know very well. Local and tribal variations of the Spanish colonial machettes... Even these swords might have been first in Morocco and then later to the Caribbeans.
Why? Simply the Triangular trade... Think about it... I know that you like trade stories... I will post another funny example later...

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Rick,
No problem with the Spanish origins, and later Cuban, Mexican and Dominican... Of Course.
But I strongly disagree that all the forum members agreed with your conclusions (at least Ariel and I we didn't), you have also Berber swords from South Morocco that I know very well. Local and tribal variations of the Spanish colonial machettes... Even these swords might have been first in Morocco and then later to the Caribbeans.
Why? Simply the Triangular trade... Think about it... I know that you like trade stories... I will post another funny example later...

Thank you Kubur!
This is a very interesting geographical story A real journey.
But maybe we will return to Afghanistan?

[motan]

Reputable motan, unfortunately, you view the past through the “prism of modernity” (that is, from the perspective of modern views). In an archaic society, which the Afghans represented in the 19th century (and even more so the Kafirs Hindu Kush ), there can be no a-typical weapons decorated in an a-typical technique for this culture. There may be trophies, but not objects typical of society, with some a-typical features.

Hello Mahratt,
While I may be suffering from post-modernism (I guess that is what you mean), others here suffer from dogmatism and rigidity of thought. I really don't know much about Kaffirs and their culture and I am not the best judge of this specific knife. However, the Kalash do not live in Papua or on the moon and trade contacts always existed. Fringes produce fringe pieces and I totally reject the view that weapons that do not conform with known and recognized types are necessarily "fake" in any way. That is all.
The last 2 pieces I have shown on the forum are almost certainly 19th c, genuine, but do not belong to any known type (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25170 http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24995).
I understand why collectors dislike these odd pieces. They blur a picture that is too complex as it is. But ignoring these would be treating our hobby as any another fancy (pedigree dogs for example), where 19th c "scientific" views still prevail, meaning that opinions and reasoning are preferred above facts.
Ariel has been provocative, as usual, in order to develop discussion. Whatever this knife is, it is clearly not worth the asking price by a long shot.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by motan

Hello Mahratt,
While I may be suffering from post-modernism (I guess that is what you mean), others here suffer from dogmatism and rigidity of thought. I really don't know much about Kaffirs and their culture and I am not the best judge of this specific knife. However, the Kalash do not live in Papua or on the moon and trade contacts always existed.

Hello motan,
In recent months, I read a lot about Kalash and other kafirs of Nuristan (Kafiristan), talk with Kalash, who has a museum in Kabul dedicated to the culture of Kafiristan, look at museum collections and study archival photos from Kafiristan Therefore, I would not draw such hasty conclusions about the existence of "trade contacts" with Persia there. Until the end of the 19th century, these were very archaic and isolated societies.

Originally Posted by motan

The last 2 pieces I have shown on the forum are almost certainly 19th c, genuine, but do not belong to any known type (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25170 http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=24995)

I don’t know anything about Shibriyas, so I can’t say anything about the daggers that you mentioned. But I am a little versed in the weapons of Afghanistan

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

The inscription is in Farsi. I saw word “Allah” and am almost sure the entire text is a part of one of the Suras.

I won't be so sure, it might be poetry, you might have names, places...

Richard's date looks very right.

Originally Posted by ariel

I would like to ask a general question: on what grounds do we discard unusual objects as some kind of “fake”?

Answer ignorant and arogance

A few years ago when I joined this forum, i trusted very much members opinions. I remember for some khanjar and others objects. Now i don't.
Most of the members here (including myself - sometimes) have very limited ideas and they base their opinions only on their own knowledge (unfortunately sometimes based only on Google and wikipedia).

Fake, modern, recent is an easy way.
I remember a discussion on the Greek yataghans, it was a disaster: statments without any proofs (only the ones that I provided and were turned against my own demonstration) and this by reputable and knowledgable members.

Originally Posted by ariel

to conclude that we have no idea when its blade was etched? That “1229” may be a genuine date ( even in Jalali)?

Another point for you Ariel is why doing such complicated "fake", the script and the rider, all these decorations are very rich and i wonder if someone wanted to enhance an object to sell it to a dealer or a collector, he would have spend so much time. One inscription, one date wouldb have been more than enough. In short your sword and the etching are problably genuine and it's true that the doubts that we might have are based mainly on the uniqueness of the object.

Originally Posted by ariel

Even they admit from time to time that they do not know something and cannot pass an informed judgement. Shouldn’t we all adopt a similar attitude?
“Just the facts, Ma’am!”

I can give you many examples such as the Berber swords from Morocco it was decided by Forum members that these swords are all Spanish colonials from the Carabean or South America. When you have many nimcha with Spanish blades and I know some of these swords were collected in Morocco...

It's not only about facts, it is also how you use the references and the facts (again look at the discussionon the Greek yataghan).

[ariel]

Atypical and unusual are not bad words.

Often they tell us about bridges between traditions and cultures. Charles presented here quite a few such examples, mainly from Indonesia. Deccan was a place where South Indian and Mughal traditions fused together.

Sometimes they are rare surviving examples of a previously well-established pattern: Shapsugh kindjals were described as having unusually wide blades. But Shapsughs were exiled from their land by the Russians ~150 years ago, settled elsewhere in the Ottoman realm and ceased to maintain their exclusive traditions. Their weapons largely vanished as a result. Currently, having encountered their old kindjal, we may dismiss it as an “ atypical” and exclude it from consideration.

We are to ignore the “unusual” to our peril: it impoverishes our understanding of history of people and their weapons. We are at our right ( and obligation?) to weed out fakes, but we need to support such a decision with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements.

Regretfully, cocky self-appointed “gurus” are the most vocal and the most aggressive popularisers of their pseudo-knowledge, and Internet as well as self-publishing book companies present them a vast arena for spreading their narcissistic balderdash.

This is why it is an obligation to remain serious, factual and “academic” in our discussions. There are quite a few people who can teach us how to do it, - LaRocca, Alexander, Elgood, Rivkin, Mohamed. They are professionals unlike us, the amateurs, but we still can learn the basics from them.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Atypical and unusual are not bad words.
Often they tell us about bridges between traditions and cultures. Charles presented here quite a few such examples, mainly from Indonesia. Deccan was a place where South Indian and Mughal traditions fused together.

It would be very interesting if you would tell in more detail about the "bridges between traditions and cultures" in Afghanistan. This would increase the knowledge of all forum participants.

Originally Posted by ariel

We are to ignore the “unusual” to our peril: it impoverishes our understanding of history of people and their weapons. We are at our right ( and obligation?) to weed out fakes, but we need to support such a decision with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements.

It may be better to confirm "unique" items "a with damn good facts, not with superficial factoids and general statements. That would be more logical.

Originally Posted by ariel

This is why it is an obligation to remain serious, factual and “academic” in our discussions.

Personally, I look forward to when will begin “academic” in this discussions. But unfortunately, so far only assumptions have been voiced that are not based on unserious facts ...

For the fourth time, for example, I very much ask the participants who claimed that the Sunnis could depict anthropomorphic figures and animals on their blades, show Ottoman blades of the 19th century, executed and decorated by Turkish masters, with similar images in this topic ...
Is this too immodest a request?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Another point for you Ariel is why doing such complicated "fake", the script and the rider, all these decorations are very rich and i wonder if someone wanted to enhance an object to sell it to a dealer or a collector, he would have spend so much time. One inscription, one date wouldb have been more than enough.

Here are absolutely grotesque examples of modern products of Afghan masters. Why didn’t they put only one inscription on the blades? Or just an image of one animal? I have no answer. But I think that no one will doubt that these are souvenirs ....

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Here are absolutely grotesque examples of modern products of Afghan masters. Why didn’t they put only one inscription on the blades? Or just an image of one animal? I have no answer. But I think that no one will doubt that these are souvenirs ....

Excellent examples, just decorative, I don't think they can be qualifed of fakes.
The technique is very different too, engraved or ciselled.
I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Excellent examples, just decorative, I don't think they can be qualifed of fakes.
The technique is very different too, engraved or ciselled.
I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

I say that in the case of Ariel’s Khyber’s knife, and in the case of the objects that I showed, the master was not limited to “one inscription” or “one animal”. But the technique of decorating blades is certainly different)))

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

Kubur,

I apologize if I was insufficiently clear, but the Khyber I have shown is NOT mine. It was just posted on e-bay for $5,885 :-))), not sold ( naturally) and taken off the auction.
When the latter was done, I posted its pictures as required by Forum rules.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I think Ariel's sword is another animal.

Kubur,
Unfortunately, fakes are of different levels. Some are grotesque, others are well made. For example, choora dagger, which was recently sold on e-bay. Very nice decoration of the blade. I even liked it. But "A Devil in the Details". . For example, if it was an old decoration of the blade, then the master would definitely decorate the T-shaped spine in the same style...

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Kubur,
Unfortunately, fakes are of different levels. Some are grotesque, others are well made. For example, choora dagger, which was recently sold on e-bay. Very nice decoration of the blade. I even liked it. But "A Devil in the Details". . For example, if it was an old decoration of the blade, then the master would definitely decorate the T-shaped spine in the same style...

Very interesting example, but the fact that the decoration on the blade was made by a different person doesn't make it a fake!

Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. But that doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.

The choora in your photos appears to have the decorations on the blade made by chiseling. This takes a big amount of time and skill and by no means can it be seen as diminishing the value of the blade.

I wouldn't consider even your earlier examples as fakes, but just poorly executed knives for the souvenirs market.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Very interesting example, but the fact that the decoration on the blade was made by a different person doesn't make it a fake!

Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. But that doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.

Agree 100%. Nothing "fake-y" here. Everywhere from Turkey to India blades were made by bladesmiths and the rest by some other masters. Persians even had specific names for each profession, but I just forgot them. Thinking that had it been real, it would have had similar decoration on the handle is akin to asserting that had it really been da Vinci who painted Mona Lisa, he would have given her more luxurious frame.
I also agree that the previous ones, labeled as "fakes" are nothing but. An object becomes a "fake" when a newly-made one is offered for sale as a genuinely antique. Otherwise, it is either an honest working one made recently, or a souvenir.