2nd Caucasian Kindjal for comment

Mark · 16th June 2008, 03:23 PM

Though not always necessary in an informal forum such as this, it is always important to be able to lay out facts/evidence in support of any claim. Sometimes the one-line conclusory answer suffices, other times a more detailed basis is needed or requested. The absense of one, or insistance upon one, should not (IMO) reflect negatively on either the opiner.

There have been a number of factual observations made about this piece which have been indicated as showing it to be either recent or antique, but what I think is lacking a bit is the significance of these observations in the context. There are inprecise, you might say sloppy, aspects to the engraving. What does this mean for a kindjal? As someone pointed out, sloppy does not universally equate either with "recent" or "fake." But does it for kindjal? The niello has certain wear patterns - what does this tell us, other than that it is worn? What do the particulars of the blade geometry tell us? Should a 19th C kindjal have well-made, or unfinished rivits? Is there some sine qua non for an 18th C, or 18th C, or 20th C kindjal?

For example, in my own experience, a poorly made blade, even in fancy fittings, says nothing about the age or genuineness of a dha, as it is not uncommon for a genuinely "old" dha to have a rather poorly made blade. The same goes for the craftsmanship of the fittings. They can be a clue, but you have to look beyond to the whole package & context to see whether a poorly made blade of this particular style, with this particular type of fitting, from this region is consistent with the purported age, or not.

16th June 2008, 03:23 PM	#29
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Though not always necessary in an informal forum such as this, it is always important to be able to lay out facts/evidence in support of any claim. Sometimes the one-line conclusory answer suffices, other times a more detailed basis is needed or requested. The absense of one, or insistance upon one, should not (IMO) reflect negatively on either the opiner. There have been a number of factual observations made about this piece which have been indicated as showing it to be either recent or antique, but what I think is lacking a bit is the significance of these observations in the context. There are inprecise, you might say sloppy, aspects to the engraving. What does this mean for a kindjal? As someone pointed out, sloppy does not universally equate either with "recent" or "fake." But does it for kindjal? The niello has certain wear patterns - what does this tell us, other than that it is worn? What do the particulars of the blade geometry tell us? Should a 19th C kindjal have well-made, or unfinished rivits? Is there some sine qua non for an 18th C, or 18th C, or 20th C kindjal? For example, in my own experience, a poorly made blade, even in fancy fittings, says nothing about the age or genuineness of a dha, as it is not uncommon for a genuinely "old" dha to have a rather poorly made blade. The same goes for the craftsmanship of the fittings. They can be a clue, but you have to look beyond to the whole package & context to see whether a poorly made blade of this particular style, with this particular type of fitting, from this region is consistent with the purported age, or not.