Old Khyber

[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.

[mahratt]

Probably, I incomprehensibly explained It was necessary to put the link:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/ANCIEN-COUT...wAAOSwx0FdZCQw

This choora dagger, judging by the description, is declared as ancient. Beautiful floral carving on a blade is a modern work. I will explain again what I wrote a little earlier. If the old master made this carving, he would decorate the T-shaped spine this choora dagger in the same style. The photo shows that the T-shaped spine this choora dagger is decorated very roughly. Old masters did not allow such stylistic differences.
So we are dealing with a fake ... As I said before, there are fakes of a very good standard
I didn’t say anything about the hilt Perhaps my bad English is to blame. Sorry for not being able to explain right away...

For me personally, modern work (in my understanding "modern work" for an object that is 100 years old is 10-30-50 years old) on an old blade (even if it will be very good) - reduces the value of the item ... For me, such an object will be fake.

Marius, I agree with you that Japanese swords are usually made by a master swordsmith and occasionaly decorated/engraved (horimono), sometimes at a much later date by another master. That doesn't make them fakes, nor does it decrease their value.
But if I make an engraving on an old Japanese blade - what do you say about this?)) Will it be a fake?

[Ian]

Mahratt:

You raise some excellent points. I think it comes down to how people present the item. Your choora example is a good one. Here the engraved floral work was clearly done recently (compared with other engravings on the blade and hilt). The item is presented as very old (ancienne) without any qualification that the engraving may be recent. This is a flawed characterization of the item. One cannot say for sure whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or not, but the item is not as old as the description suggests and it has been altered.

This example goes beyond the frequent exaggeration of age that many descriptions convey, in that the item has been altered. Was there intent to deceive? That's a matter of individual judgement IMHO. Caveat emptor!

Ian

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ian

Mahratt:

You raise some excellent points. I think it comes down to how people present the item. Your choora example is a good one. Here the engraved floral work was clearly done recently (compared with other engravings on the blade and hilt). The item is presented as very old (ancienne) without any qualification that the engraving may be recent. This is a flawed characterization of the item. One cannot say for sure whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or not, but the item is not as old as the description suggests and it has been altered.

This example goes beyond the frequent exaggeration of age that many descriptions convey, in that the item has been altered. Was there intent to deceive? That's a matter of individual judgement IMHO. Caveat emptor!

Ian

Ian,
Thanks for understanding.

[ariel]

Ian,


One needs to be careful with those Frenchies:-)

There is a subtle difference between ancien (seller’s description) and ancient.
“Ancien” is translated first and foremost as old or past, previous, former.
”Ancien regime”= old rule. That’s how French called their monarchy before the 1789 Revolution.
But “ancient” is ancient or antique.
Sometimes, foreign languages are useful. N’est-ce pas?

The poor schnook never presented his choora as “antique”, just as “old”, which is true. Does not qualify for a “fake”.

[Ian]

Good point Ariel. Merci beaucoup!

[ariel]

De rien:-)

[mahratt]

Bravo, Ariel.

As always, you masterfully "play with words"))))

Your linguistic knowledge is fascinating, but it is not relevant. Since it is clear that the seller does not say that he is selling a modern item.

if I'm not mistaken "ANCIEN COUTEAU ETHNIQUE" - translates as "OLD ETHNIC KNIFE"
Unfortunately, the seller does not write in the description that the decoration of the blade is recent.

It always makes sense to read the entire description, and not shine with "linguistic knowledge"...

[kai]

I’m sure Ariel is not trying to be apologetic concerning this seller.

We all need to keep in mind that most salesmen will try to phrase any description in a way that entices possible buyers in reading more into it than what will be considered as legally binding - caveat emptor.

It helps to really think about what is NOT being said in sales lore...

Regards,
Kai

[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.

[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.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by mahratt

But if I make an engraving on an old Japanese blade - what do you say about this?)) Will it be a fake?

Well, if you make an engraving on a Japanese blade, it will certainly be a disaster... for the blade of course (not that I am doubting your engraving skills).

However, if say you have a blade from 1700 and around 1900 the owner has it decorated with horimono by a master engraver, that would not decrease the value of the sword... but with some observations: the horimono should be TRADITIONALLY made = chiseled by hand, and with a traditional theme (hi, kanji symbols, kurikara, etc.)

So if the horimono would be made using any other method than chiseling by hand (using power tools, by etching, by punching, etc.), or if the horimono is not of traditional motifs (say you engrave your name) then it would be mutilating the blade and turning it into a fake (a contraption that is not what it is supposed to be).

In my oppinion this is precisely the case of the khyber sword in the original posting. A genuine typical Afghan khyber sword, with some decoration added on the blade at a later date, but the decoration is made by a method that is definitely NOT traditional for the Afghan khyber swords, and also has a theme that does not appear traditional as well (at least not to my eyes).

But I am not so sure about the choora in your example. The argument that a genuine Afghan engraver would have also engraved the spine in the same style is a pure speculation. Maybe the owner didn't have enough money to pay for a full engraving...
Anyhow, at least to my eyes and just judging from the photos, the engraving on the choora appears traditionally made and with Afghan style motifs. So to me, the choora may be very genuine and original.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

In my oppinion this is precisely the case of the khyber sword in the original posting. A genuine typical Afghan khyber sword, with some decoration added on the blade at a later date, but the decoration is made by a method that is definitely NOT traditional for the Afghan khyber swords, and also has a theme that does not appear traditional as well (at least not to my eyes).

Of course, the authenticity of the Khyber knife, which served as the basis for later decoration, is beyond doubt

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

But I am not so sure about the choora in your example. The argument that a genuine Afghan engraver would have also engraved the spine in the same style is a pure speculation. Maybe the owner didn't have enough money to pay for a full engraving...
Anyhow, at least to my eyes and just judging from the photos, the engraving on the choora appears traditionally made and with Afghan style motifs. So to me, the choora may be very genuine and original.

Marius, was there no money for a small decoration on the dagger’s spine? Despite the fact that on both sides the blade is richly decorated with deep carving? I'm afraid it is this - pure speculation)))
Moreover, it is known that if a traditional blade was used on chur (as in the case of my example), then it is always decorated very roughly. And the appearance of such a beautiful, deep and graceful carving, but only on the sides of the blade is completely unconventional. Rather, I believe that someone ordered such a carving in the 1970s and 1980s, while not understanding how it should be in tradition. Moreover, this floral ornament is not very typical for Afghanistan. Although the master tried hard)))

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

But I am not so sure about the choora in your example. The argument that a genuine Afghan engraver would have also engraved the spine in the same style is a pure speculation. Maybe the owner didn't have enough money to pay for a full engraving...
Anyhow, at least to my eyes and just judging from the photos, the engraving on the choora appears traditionally made and with Afghan style motifs. So to me, the choora may be very genuine and original.

Absolutely correct, this is speculation, just look at the yataghans for example.
To me too this choora looks right.
Guys you have to stop to think that decorations are suspicious. And yes these decorations were done after the blade was forged... It is also speculation to think that it was in a later date, it could have been two days after the forge, two weeks, two months...Patina is important.

[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

Absolutely correct, this is speculation, just look at the yataghans for example.
To me too this choora looks right.
Guys you have to stop to think that decorations are suspicious. And yes these decorations were done after the blade was forged... It is also speculation to think that it was in a later date, it could have been two days after the forge, two weeks, two months...Patina is important.

Well, if for someone this is not important, then let it be in 2 years, in 20 years, in 200 years))))
Seriously, it seems to me that it makes sense to look at analogies. And if there are no analogies, then it is necessary to question such "decorations" of blades. Especially if the "decoration" is made in the technique. which is a-typical for an item from a specific region.
But! This is a personal matter for everyone.

[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

[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?

[ariel]

Guys,
I am not being provocative. On the contrary, I am saying that in the absence of hard facts ( aluminum on a presumably 17 century sword, plastic handle, engraving with contemporary motives etc) unusual swords and daggers should not be officially labeled as “fake”. There is such thing as presumption of innocence:-)

Unusual things challenge our current knowledge: have we missed something? We may thus engage in a search for potential gaps in our knowledge. But on top of it, swords mutated, better communications introduced exchange of forms, techniques and decorations. Trade blades were ubiquitous: European blades were sold to Sudan, Arabia and North Africa, Daghestanis sold their blades to Arabia, Indian and Persian blades were dime a dozen in Afghanistan, Oriental blades were sold in Europe. We see Philippine Barongs with Chinese hieroglyphic marks: Chinese exported them there in quantities. Trophies made “chimeric” weapons: British blade with Indian handle, Indian blade with British handle, Khanda blade with Georgian handle.

Could this Khyber blade with the etching been made in Persia in the middle of 19 century and sold in Afghanistan where a local handle was attached to it? It is a distinct possibility: why wouldn’t Persian smiths cease an opportunity to make a buck? After all, they sold quantities of sophisticated wootz Shamshir blades with engraved, chiseled and koftgari Persian inscriptions there anyway, why not make a simple Khyber blade and add a cheap etching to it?

My point is, we cannot automatically assume that strange is fake. We may not like what we see and not buy it, but in the absence of hard evidence ( Marius’ example of horimono) we may want to suspend our negative judgement.

[ariel]

Kubur,
Re. “Berber or Spanish colonial” swords I have no dog in this fight.
My only point was that there is a big old oil in Versailles showing a battle of French with Berbers. One Berber holds an identical sword. Regretfully ( stupidly, in fact) I did not photograph it or info about the artist and the date.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Could this Khyber blade with the etching been made in Persia in the middle of 19 century and sold in Afghanistan where a local handle was attached to it? It is a distinct possibility: why wouldn’t Persian smiths cease an opportunity to make a buck? After all, they sold quantities of sophisticated wootz Shamshir blades with engraved, chiseled and koftgari Persian inscriptions there anyway, why not make a simple Khyber blade and add a cheap etching to it?

Unfortunately, these words are just “flight of fancy”. Shamshir is a typically Persian weapon. And their blades were highly valued and exported to other countries. There is a lot of evidence for this. The Khyber knife is the weapon of the inhabitants of Afghanistan and, to some extent, Northern India (but there the Khyber knives have their own recognizable style). I have no doubt that the Persian master could make a Khyber knife. Moreover, I know such examples. But then the Khyber knife made by the Persian master will look different than the one we are discussing. This is due to cultural traditions. There will be a different shape of the blade, another shape of the handle, another technique for decorating the blade.
By the way, for some reason everyone forgot what Marius wrote at the very beginning:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Acid etching MAY be an "old" (please define what you mean by "old") technique, but Persians did NOT use it before 19th century, and even then for very specific and few items (mostly decorative, historicism - known as Qajar revival - blades decorated with religious texts).

I will add that such a rough Acid etching is usually found on Persian objects of the late 19th century.