Karud dagger with unusual chased scabbard

[ariel]

British 1796 saber served for a very long time in India. It did not make it Indian.

Then, when it was old and outmoded, Brits gave it to the Indians who threw away its steel scabbard and replaced it with a wooden/leather one. It still remained British 1796 pattern light cavalry saber.

Just as a man dressed as a woman is still a man.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

British 1796 saber served for a very long time in India. It did not make it Indian.

Then, when it was old and outmoded, Brits gave it to the Indians who threw away its steel scabbard and replaced it with a wooden/leather one. It still remained British 1796 pattern light cavalry saber.

Just as a man dressed as a woman is still a man.

Is are we talking about typical army arms, the place of production of which a priori cannot raise questions? Like we are talking about ethnographic items?
Are you ready to "o risk one's neck", claiming that this karud was made in Afghanistan?
By the way, if we change the hilt of a British saber to a tulvar hilt, we, of course, will know that the donor is a British saber, but at least we will clearly understand exactly where it was used.
Here's another example. The Khyber knife is undoubtedly an Afghan arms. But I think that any of the forum participants, looking at the Khyber in this photo, will say that this is an Indian arms:

[Ian]

Guys,

I think we are headed down a familiar path. As ariel notes, CharlesS (and others) have shown a large number of mixed-cultural edged weapons that have been discussed previously in this Forum. We usually have no clear information about the various items' provenances, and attempts to describe where these were made and used are often speculative. When attempting to place such items geographically, we often end up in the realm of guess work, otherwise known as "professional judgement" or "expert opinion."

It's interesting to debate these topics but, in terms of informing the reader here, it is perhaps most helpful to define the blade (e.g., karud, pesh kabz of Afghan type) and dress (e.g., indo-Persian), with a likely geographic attribution (e.g., Central Asian).

What readers here are mainly looking for is guidance that is fairly clear, but also expresses the uncertainty of its characterization.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ian

Guys,

I think we are headed down a familiar path. As ariel notes, CharlesS (and others) have shown a large number of mixed-cultural edged weapons that have been discussed previously in this Forum. We usually have no clear information about the various items' provenances, and attempts to describe where these were made and used are often speculative. When attempting to place such items geographically, we often end up in the realm of guess work, otherwise known as "professional judgement" or "expert opinion."

It's interesting to debate these topics but, in terms of informing the reader here, it is perhaps most helpful to define the blade (e.g., karud, pesh kabz of Afghan type) and dress (e.g., indo-Persian), with a likely geographic attribution (e.g., Central Asian).

What readers here are mainly looking for is guidance that is fairly clear, but also expresses the uncertainty of its characterization.

Exactly true.

The process of defining a weapon is pretty standard and stepwise.

First, we define a type of a weapon in question: shamshir, yataghan, nimcha, kaskara etc. Easy.

Second, we try to pinpoint its origin. Manceau in France and Labruna in Italy produced very convincing yataghans that were not really Ottoman, but the names of the manufacturers were clearly stated. That was also easy.

After that, the tougher parts start.

Since sometimes the exact provenance is uncertain, we have to rely on the preponderance of evidence. The dagger in question is definitively a “ karud”. There are also some features hinting at its Central Asian origin: 2x1x1 rivets, certain crudeness of execution etc. However, there are no features compatible with Indian origin ( like the just posted khyber). Elephant ivory was traded widely and cannot help us. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Central Asia from Afghanistan to the Khanates.

Lastly, we look at the decorations. Here we see very “ Buddhist” repousse motives of the scabbard parts. This tells us that they came from a different tradition. Whether this ” karud” found itself geographically somewhere else or the scabbard was decorated by a “ buddhist” master in CA is unknowable. In any case this “karud” never became an established pattern of a “Buddhist” weapon tradition but remained firmly as a CA weapon.

Thus, our final description may sound something like “CA pesh kabz with straight blade and a scabbard redecorated with “Buddhist” repousse motives”.

This is the best we can do with strange objects.

[mariusgmioc]

Or "CA karud with a scabbard redecorated with “Buddhist” repousse motives”.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Or "CA karud with a scabbard redecorated with “Buddhist” repousse motives”.

On the Forum,- as you wish:-) I would not do it if I were to write a book on Central Asian weapons, but in informal exchanges,- no problem.

But I am glad we agree in principle

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

On the Forum,- as you wish:-) I would not do it if I were to write a book on Central Asian weapons, but in informal exchanges,- no problem.

It is a pity that we will not see your book on the arms of Central Asia. Undoubtedly, it would be a valuable work, given your vast experience.

Complementing your definition of the subject under discussion, I would clarify that the dagger under discussion is: "Karud. The place of production with a high degree of probability is Afghanistan (if you made us all happy with a book about the arms of the khanates of Central Asia, you would know why this dagger has nothing to do with the khanates) "The details of the scabbard are undoubtedly of Sino-Tibetan origin. The use of the item most likely took place in this region".

[ariel]

And, BTW, I frown upon the use of the term “Khyber knife” in books and other professional publications.
First, this moniker was given to it by the Brits who did not know of, or did not care about, its real name.
Second, it implies that this weapon was endemic specifically to the Khyber Pass area. In fact, it was produced and used in other Afghani areas, in CA Khanates ( somewhere here there was a photo of a whole slew of them sold as butcher meat choppers), in India and (in a slightly modified form) even in Persia ( See Fiegel, #2095, 2096).

Interestingly, “ ch’hura” is more correct: it is a word with Sanscritic roots meaning a knife.
In formal publications the native term “ selava” is, IMHO, mandatory. It is its true local name and, having learned it, we are obligated to use it.

I take my hat of to Indonesian and Philippine gurus who are very careful, almost persnickety, about terminology.

Again, in informal exchanges we can call it whatever is convenient for the occasion.