Interesting snippets

Now I am REALLY going to make a heel of myself, telling this story! I can hear the forumites hooting: Boo-boo, we've heard it before!!!!!!! Yet, I have not read it before on khukuri FAQ or in Bladeforum...

This Britsh soldier, after the war, came up to the Gurkha soldier and said to him: "I heard you Johnny Gurks are very quick with your khukris. They say you can cut off a guy's head without him knowing it! Is that true?"

The Gurkha looked at him and said: "Sahib....shake your head!"

 
Johan, I disremembered to comment on the article in Tactical Knives you asked about. My feeling about it was that it was a nice little story that could just as well appear in any pop publication. What I mean by that is: It was a story about a trekker in that part of the world who found his way to the local blacksmith, who in turn made him a khukuri in less than a day from a Jeep spring he brought to the kami.

There was no real test of the quality of the work, but it wasn't easy on the eyes. Rough as a cobb or primitive folk art was my assessment of the looks of the rig. It was a nice narrative but left me underwhelmed, and had I known in advance might not have bothered to look it up. Overall, I'd say it wasn't worth the price of the magazine. A decent story yes, impressive khukuri no. But if I was there, I'd probably have spent 5 bucks to have the guy hammer out a souvenier and story, too.

A positive was that my appreciation of GH khukuris has increased....Dan
 
I took leave from work yesterday and visited the Military Museum in my city. The curator told me during a reenactment shoot a week ago that he had three khukuris, two on display and one in stores. He asked me to identify and appraise them. Poor guy, he really didn't know ANYBODY else who thought they knew anything about khuks round here! For the interest of the forum, I thought it might be interesting to read the report I gave the curator afterwards.

I want to make it clear that I do not view myself as an expert on khuks. You all know I'm just now emerging from my status as newbie. But really, it was a question of providing the curator with information to the best of my ability, or just turn my head and ignore him. I chose the former.

NUMBER 1
This looks like a genuine traditional Nepalese-style khukuri. Whether in fact it was made in Nepal, or possibly in India, is not known. The blade is of the slender sirupati type. The scrolled "sword of Shiva" is quite ornate and seems to be reasonably well done. There is a single fullered groove. The blade does not have a shoulder, but slopes foreward. The blade shows many file marks on the spine and along the blade, and sharpening seems to have been done excessively, even into the ricasso area on both sides of the conventional cho. It was probably hammer-forged before 1900, as the blade (due to a little meandering hairline surface crack / flaw near the tip) seems to be made with metal not salvaged from vehicle springs. The handle is made of wood, in quite a dry state, and the buttcap consists of a thin steel plate with a hole and diamond-shaped washer through which the rattail tang has been peened over. The number of rings (4+4+ridge) on the handle does not correspond to the "normal" pattern found on khukuris. The poorly finished accessory tools are present. The karda's handle is of buffalo horn, but the chakmak's wooden handle is probably a replacement. The scabbard is wood, covered with black buffalo hide, with the two pouches for the accessory tools. The leather is decorated with a pattern. There is no chape. The scabbard seems to have undergone repairs as the centre portion has been covered with a tin plate over which the leather has been badly restitched. There is no frog, but the scabbard has a thong, undoubtedly not original, which might serve to hang the khukuri on a wall. The first old civilian I've seen and handled. I like it.

NUMBER 2
This seems to be a very old, high-quality Nepalese khukuri. The most conspicuous characteristic is the drop, which is very pronounced indeed. It seems almost to describe a half-circle. It is not very large. The blade has at least one fullered groove. The cho is conventional. The handle is of wood. There is no scabbard. More detail or measurements cannot be obtained till the khukuri is removed from its glass-fronted display case for closer scrutiny. I find myself exited about this one.

NUMBER 3
This khukuri-shaped knife seems not to be Nepalese-made, but rather crudely fashioned by some other less skilled bladesmith. There seems to be considerable Western influence. The blade is shouldered, and the cho is conventional. The "sword of Shiva" is a simple line and is poorly inscribed. The panna butta handle (all bright and everything) is made from either ivory of bone, and the slabs are pinned to the tang with at least five thin brass pins. There is no scabbard. More detail cannot be gleaned till it is removed from its glass- fronted display case for closer scrutiny. This one does not impress me at all.

I'd love to hear what a guy like JP (or other forumites) thinks of my attempt at identification. Foremost in my own mind is the old saying: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!
 
Johan,
You're observations are excellent and I hope to help with some answers. If there is anyway you can get in to photograph these knives and measure them that would be great.

This photo is an example of the kukris found with a group of small knives and tools. It is referred to as a "swiss army" or more correctly, a "trousse". There are usually 8-10 pieces and the age is determined by what the makeup of this array is. The later ones will have scissors and sometimes a litle saw with a saw type grip. The most common are white bone, then horn, then wood, exotic horn (rhino, or like this example that is made of giraffe) and finally ivory.

View


------------------
JP
 
Johan,
Here is a photo of 4 very old kukris. 1780-1820. You can easily see the pronounced 'drop' and the type grips. These are referred to as "hanshee" or full arc.
Many people feel that the knife has to be long and slender to be ancient, but the 2
"budhume" or big belly show just how large these old knives could be.

It sounds like the one you saw could fit into this category. For some reason the scabbards on the thinner blades are rarer than on the "budhume' blades.

View


------------------
JP
 
Thanks for the pics and comments, JP! The top khuk in your group of four has got a slender blade much like the one I described in my NUMBER 1 breakdown. The bottom pic in your group of four looks much like the one I described in my NUMBER 2 breakdown, but the belly was not so fat at all. The handle is very similar. Yes, the museum curator indicated he will deliver the three khuks to my house end of this week for further study and measurement, as well as photographing, then I will get the photos to you by snailmail and maybe you will be so kind as to post the pics here for us to see and comment further on.

I won't get to KEEP the khuks, worse luck!)
 
Forumites might be interested to know that the photographs of the museum khuks provisionally described above, will be sent to JP by snailmail on Thursday. I will request that JP kindly post the pics here on GH Bladeforum, to tell us what he thinks of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top