On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[Mercenary]

I put here some theses from the article:

"Weapons sold in the 19-20th centuries at the Indian markets were certainly typologically similar to real weapons, although manufactured as souvenirs and handicrafts. Therefore the quality of information the customer learnt about the name, features, and origin of a weapon type depended on the seller`s knowledge of the weapon. The provided information must have been variable depending on the place of purchase and language spoken by the seller."

"From two independent sources the descriptions of traditional martial practices in Muslim Lucknow, which ceased to exist by the late 19th century, are known... A knife fight called "bank" is described. This fighting art had been practiced by both Indians and Muslims since long ago, but the weapon types used were different. The Indian dagger was straight and double-edged, whereas the "Arab one" was recurved and single-edged..."

"...Generally speaking, the word "katar" was a collective term for daggers and derived from the stem "kat" meaning "cut" or "wound". Some authors describe straight "stiletto-like" weapons or objects resembling the dirk (Scotch dagger) by this word (fig. 3). It is of interest to note regarding this object that Lord Egerton indicated Nepal as the place of origin of this weapon type. Indeed, there is an inexplicably great number of old Indian katars originating from Nepal. Probably, it could be explained the following way. On the morrow of the rebellion of ascetics (fakirs and sannyasis) in Bihar and Bengal, their detachments fled to Nepal, which had been used by the ascetics as a rear base during the revolt and where they had taken shelter from persecutions and replenished their forces. The rebellion managed to be eventually suppressed only when the British administration agreed with the rulers of Nepal (and Butan) to ban the armed monks from being present on their territory . As a result. the monks settled on the territory of Nepal and with the time sannyasis even started to be regarded as a separate caste. Nepal has long been a strong point of ascetics and they have been actively taking part in its military and political life."

"...The etymology of the dagger`s name "bichwa" is usually traced down to the comparison of its shape to the scorpion`s sting, suggesting that this type of weapon originates from daggers made of one-piece horn, in which a through-hole for the hand was cut. Doubts in such a treatment are possible taking into account how relatively a horn looks like a scorpion`s sting, as well as the differences in pronunciation and spelling of the word "bichwa" when defining a scorpion and a dagger type. It should rather be noted that both these words derive from one and the same term meaning "damage" or "cut" . It should be assumed that "bichwa" is the regional name of a dagger with a guard bow. It is notable that Lord Egerton uses this term to describe a common double curved Indian dagger with a side guard, in other cases calling it "khanjar" or "chilanum" , which was considered an error before."

"...The word “pata” denoting a weapon also appears in Tarikh-i-Husain Shahi (Durrani-namah), the history of the Durrani dynasty, which was worked on by Imam ud-din Husaini Chishti for several years and finished in 1798. He mentions that the Marathas had a detachment of several thousand “pathabaz” in the battle of Panipat in 1761, and this word in the Deccani language meant exactly warriors armed with swords, or “skilled” warriors..."

"...As to the sword`s name khanda the leading scholars also provide a consonant word meaning "shoulders" , which in the old Hindi language was strangely enough used as part of the phrases meaning "to injure a body" or "cut through a body". Probably it is related to damaging the upper part of the body, beheading (only leaving shoulders), or "striking from the shoulder". This kind of phrase was often used by the Indian poet Chand Bardai, who lived in the 12th century..."

[Mercenary]

I'm starting to think that "phul-katara" from Jahangir-namah it is simply means carved or with koftgary blade. So phrases "a jeweled khapwa with a phul-katara" means just a dagger with jeweled hilt and carved blade...

[Jens Nordlunde]

It is an interesting subject you have started, but a somewhat complicated one at the same time.
Under 'Pata'. The Tarikh-i-Husain Shahi was written about 1580, and about this time several of the states started to chang/or had already changed the language from Persian or Turkish to devangiri/tulu or other languages.
We must expect that Imam ud-din Husaini Chishti, about two centuries later, must have been aware of this, as the same word can mean different things in different languages.
Another thing is, that we dont know when those word started to be used for a weapon, or if it before that had another meaning.

To give you an idea of what I mean. I have a hunting sword, centuries later than the time discussed now. There is an inscription in Arabic letters, where the word 'Bahar' can be seen. In Farsi 'Bahar' means 'spring', but in Urdu it means 'plentiful'.

Looking forward to see other posts on this subject.

Jens

[Mercenary]

I have got it!!!!!!!! I'm absolutely sure of it, and I can prove it!!!
"Phul-katara" it is WOOTZ BLADE!!!!!!!!

[Mercenary]

Under 'Pata'. The Tarikh-i-Husain Shahi was written about 1580, and about this time several of the states started to chang/or had already changed the language from Persian or Turkish to devangiri/tulu or other languages.
We must expect that Imam ud-din Husaini Chishti, about two centuries later, must have been aware of this, as the same word can mean different things in different languages.
Jens
Of course. I am searching through meny sources and clearly aware of the differences and difficulties. You are quite right it is very difficult to say anything for sure. But in the article (I hope it will be available soon) I found out something about "pata". I hope so. )))

[Jens Nordlunde]

About the article in post one. The author writes. "From two independent sources the descriptions of traditional martial practices in Muslim Lucknow, which ceased to exist by the late 19th century, are known." It would have been interesting to know, which two indipendent sources the author refers to.
Under katar. A pity it is not mentioned where Egerton wrote that the katars origin from Nepal and when.

In the article 'How Old is the Katar?', the Journal of Royal Armoury, Leeds. Vol. 10, no 1, 2013, it is taken back to Orissa in the 10th or 11th century.
As the Orissa katar is very primitive I would regard Deccan/South India as the place of origin.

Looking forward to see what you have found out about the 'Phul-katara'.
Elgood in his book Hindu Arms and Ritual writes on page 258. "Thackston (1999) writes there were two types of punch dagger: katar or katara, the utilitarian fighting weapon of the Mughals. Phul means flower, a reference to its decoration."

[Mercenary]

About the article in post one. The author writes. "From two independent sources the descriptions of traditional martial practices in Muslim Lucknow, which ceased to exist by the late 19th century, are known." It would have been interesting to know, which two indipendent sources the author refers to[/i]
Dear Jens
I can not put all the article here . It was published in Russian journal and I hope will be soon published in English. But I can write to you in PM.

Under katar. A pity it is not mentioned where Egerton wrote that the katars origin from Nepal and when.
Robert Elgood in "Hindu Arms And Ritual", p. 163 wrote "For many years they were attributed to Nepal on the basis of a purchase and attribution by Egerton". Further it is very well written that this kind of dagers rather "a conservative survival".
Oh... I am sorry. In the article it is not about "jamdhar" but simple "katar" or "katari". It is about Egerton's #345 and others like it. Of course, I have got your article.

Looking forward to see what you have found out about the 'Phul-katara'.
I will add this part of text to the article in English. May be after translate I will put this part right here.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your answer.
I believe that the katar origins from the south. Stuard Welsh and others believed so too. But for me it is a believe, till I am convinced it origined from somewhere else.
Researching Indian weapons or weapon names is a passion, where the outcome of the research is not always sure. You can work for a long time, and reach a point where you believe in something, but this does not mean that what you believe in is correct, so you have to go on searching, till you can prove what you believe in.
Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for your answer.
I believe that the katar origins from the south. Stuard Welsh and others believed so too. But for me it is a believe, till I am convinced it origined from somewhere else.
Researching Indian weapons or weapon names is a passion, where the outcome of the research is not always sure. You can work for a long time, and reach a point where you believe in something, but this does not mean that what you believe in is correct, so you have to go on searching, till you can prove what you believe in.
Jens


Very, very well said Jens.

[Timo Nieminen]

Researching Indian weapons or weapon names is a passion, where the outcome of the research is not always sure.

In English, we tend to borrow terms used in other languages and apply them to a specific category of weapon. This is very common, and it teaches us to expect that specific categories of weapons have specific, and fixed, names.

But the words we borrow are often much more generic in their original languages. For example, "gladius" in English means "Roman short sword", and in Latin just means "sword", generically. For example, in Curtius Rufus' "History of Alexander", "Copidas vocabant gladios leviter curvatos, falcibus similes" which we can translate as "They call their lightly-curved sickle-like gladius a "kopis"". While the Romans were happy to call a kopis a "gladius", this doesn't work in English.

If we were trying to find about the evolution of the Roman gladius via literature, we might be misled by sources like this.

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/curtius/curtius8.shtml

[mrcjgscott]

You can work for a long time, and reach a point where you believe in something, but this does not mean that what you believe in is correct, so you have to go on searching, till you can prove what you believe in.
Jens

Very true Jens!

Just when I convince myself something is certain, is usually the moment I realise how much further I need to go to prove my conviction.

It is so important to keep an open mind, and continue the search.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In Robert Elgood's book Arma and Armour at the Jaypur Court. The Royal Collection, Robert gives several examples, like on page 216.

Mace. Shashpar (sash in Persian means six - a six-flanged mace). Rajput courts would have seen this as a destinctly Mughal weapon.
If a bladed weapon was added at the top of the mace, would today be called a gurz with a zaghnol mounted at the top. Other Rajput names for a mace are musala or parigha.

My guess is that the Muslims had several words for the same weapon, depending on if they were under Persian, Turkish or maybe Mongol influence.
The Hindus would also have different names for the same weapon, but that would likely have something to do with where in the country they lived, and which language they spoke.
Jens

[Mercenary]

The Hindus would also have different names for the same weapon, but that would likely have something to do with where in the country they lived, and which language they spoke.
Jens
Exactly! And when someone of European tourists of second half of 19th century heard some of local names and now we have to see it in albums and repeat it as mantra it is not serious.
But even more ridiculous when the tourist asked someone "What is it" and Indian seller answered "It is for cutting, crushing, killing..." so now we have a lot of confusion from "katar", "katari", "katara", "bank", "bichwa", "kirch" and so. I am not talking about that sometimes Indian weapon was called like the material from which it was made ))

[Mercenary]

Looking forward to see what you have found out about the 'Phul-katara'.[/i]
"...Jahangir already gives a clear definition of the push dagger as a "jamdhar", as far as one can understand from the descriptions he makes of their use. At the same time, in Jahangir`s memoirs and other sources appear daggers with a "phul-katara" (a jeweled khapwa with a phul-katara). It is pointed out that apart from the something (of course hilt or sheath, not blade) studded with gems, the dagger has a "costly phul-katara" . The term "katara" - "cut"- leaves no doubt that it is the blade that the term in question is applied to. The meaning of the word "phul" - "flower", "flowery", “flourished” is etymologically related to the meanings "flowerage", "floral decorations" or "artistically done". It may also be assumed that blades decorated with carving, koftgari, or merely skillfully made ones, are meant. However by the 19th century, the term "phul" already defines a head of spear, sabre and dagger blade , and later merely a "sharp blade". That being said, it would be most likely to suppose that implied are flowery, patterned blades, that is the wootz, watered steel ones.
It should also be noted that there was a custom to call objects according to the blade material. So, for example, the term "sukhela" is not a distinct weapon type, but refers to the fact that the blade is made of "sukhela" - a combination of soft and hard iron, or, according to some sources, an inexpensive wootz steel type..."

[ariel]

To accomplish a serious study of the names of Indian weapons one needs to know a multitude of local languages and carefully go through mountains of primary sources. To make things even worse , one needs to verify the meaning of the name of each weapon through careful interrogation of its actual users, and there are none left.

I am very pessimistic about the outcome of this endeavor......

[Mercenary]

I am very pessimistic about the outcome of this endeavor......
But you can read that the others know. This is a normal process of learning.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Interesting idea about the meaning of the word 'phul'. I think it is worth researching it a bit to see if there anywhere else is evidence that support the idea.

Ariel is right, it will not be easy.
However a way in which it can be done, is to find the names used in Rajasthan at a certain time, both the Persian names but also the local Hindu names. This way the area is geographically bound.
Also one could start with a limited number of weapons.

Jens

[Mercenary]

I should not make excuses for my researches. I believe that only professional linguist can to prove something through the manipulation of languages and words.
But I am sure if someone is interesting in Indian culture and weapons he should be interested in something more than staring at the colorful albums. That is why I started my researches in Indian weaponry instead of talking on forums like "I am very pessimistic about my ... abilities".

Dear Jens
Only just for "a little bit to see":
phul = پھل = fruit, flower, blade, razor and so
फौल = Phūla = flower
फौलादा = Phaulādī = fulad (steel)

It is only one of the possible translations. But very interesting one ))

[Emanuel]

Hi Mercenary,

Difficult not to fall in the trap of phonetically similar words.

Have a look at Dr. Ann Feuerbach's summary on the research done to date on the word pulad:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=502

Emanuel

[ariel]

Dear Mercenary:
I would just humbly suggest to read the first paragraph of the page 9 from Elgood's book on Jaipur collection. One may learn why in Rajastan the khanjar is chhurri and the Kard is Chaqu.
Also , his book about Hindu weapons informs us that Bichwa is Bichwa in Mysore and Hyderabad , but Baku in Kannada and Vinchu in Marathi.

And, BTW, Portugese version of the origin of Indian Pata traces it to the ( surprise, surprise!) Portugese word for paw:-)

Studying origin of words and names is a province of linguistics. This, by definition, requires fluent ( or, at the very least, working ) knowledge of the languages in question.

In the absense thereof, one is doomed to compile the already known bits and pieces from older publications. Rather boring, isn't it? Staring at colorful albums is more productive and original in comparison: at least one may have a chance to see something new and heretofore unappreciated:-)

But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!

[Jim McDougall]

Actually, as one whose 'fancy is tickled' by virtually all aspects of the study of not just the arms and armour of India, but all, I must say that I am always delighted to see serious interest in pursuing topics such as this.
I wholeheartedly encourage these endeavors, and am always optimistic in active and constructive research and discussion in hopes that previously unknown facts might unfold.

As can be seen, the 'name game' (as we often affectionately refer to this aspect of arms research) has been an often approached subject, with the excellent comments and examples as well as positive perspective in the entries of most here.

Very much looking forward to development of this topic, and as always, to learning more on these things together here.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Unfortunately my knowledge to the Indian languages is more than limited, so I can not be of much help, but years ago Robert Elgood showed me a manuscript, and if I remember correctly it was a glossery over the Indian weapon names.
I dont know if he still is working on it, or if he has given it up.
Jens

[ariel]

There are glossaries in both of his "indian" books. As usual, both were meticulously researched. I can safely bet that he discussed the entries with native specialists.

For an endeavor like that, especially if the topic is a multiethnic society, one needs equal fluency in languages as well as deep knowledge of history in general, local crafts and , - in particular,- weapons per se


But eventually it is the language that will be presented to the reader.
I just got an English version of the Turkish book "Sultanlarin Silahlari". Shock to the system! The author/translator had no understanding of elementary weapon terminology in English. Took me quite some time to figure out that the word "fuller" indicated the ... entire blade:-)

Glossaries serve as precision tools for a multitude of researchers and need to be obsessively accurate. Their authorship needs to be left to superspecialists of Elgood's caliber. Amateurish forays into phonetic similarities, imprecise translations and erroneous definitions are bound to confuse generations of well-meaning readers and researchers.

[Ian]

Well said Ariel. Confusion is an all too frequent state of mind when we amateurs play the "name game." Robert Elgood is one of the few dedicated to getting it right when it comes to edged weapons.

Ian.

....
Glossaries serve as precision tools for a multitude of researchers and need to be obsessively accurate. Their authorship needs to be left to superspecialists of Elgood's caliber. Amateurish forays into phonetic similarities, imprecise translations and erroneous definitions are bound to confuse generations of well-meaning readers and researchers.

[ariel]

Thanks, Ian.
Stone and van Zonneveld immediately come to mind.

Many an enthusiastic and semiliterate dilettante tried to bite Stone's ankles for real or perceived inaccuracies. But even at its worst his Glossary is heads and shoulders above the crowd. I may need a new copy soon: mine is dog-eared from long and heavy use. The best compliment for a book:-)

[fernando]

And, BTW, Portugese version of the origin of Indian Pata traces it to the ( surprise, surprise!) Portugese word for paw:-)...
Let me also vote for surprise that not for probability. Indeed paw in portuguese is pata; with accentuation on the first 'a'.
I don't know how wide this attribution is spread out there; i find it, for one, in the (bilingual) work Rites of Power by Dr. Caravana, a phisician and collector. However he cares to write that the term will possibly be connected to such Portuguese terminology. Even so, a surprising assumption from his part, once one of his menthors and supplier, Rainer Raehnhardt, pretends that the term Pata ( quote: ) comes from the Patãs (Pathan), one of several divisions of the Xátria (Kchatrya) cast.

[David]

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh? ;)
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter. :shrug: :)

[fernando]

A rather eloquent entry, David :cool: .

[Mercenary]

Hi Mercenary,
Difficult not to fall in the trap of phonetically similar words.
Emanuel
Hi Emanuel
Why did you decide that it is any "phonetically similar words"?
It was said that the term Phaulādī is directly related with the word "flower". As well as the term "Phul" in "Phul-katara". What else? "Phul" means "fulad". It's obvious. Isn't it?

but years ago Robert Elgood showed me a manuscript, and if I remember correctly it was a glossery over the Indian weapon names.
You mean a table with lines of weapons from the Jaipur museum? I translated it. I specifically went there from time to time in three years. Nothing particularly interesting. All daggers are "choree", all sabres are "tulwar". But there are some interesting moments. I will work on it.

You all are right to say that the terms that we now have in respected books in the main are the confusion of the languages. This is what I write in my article about. But it is not just confusion of nouns and names. It is also mix of verbs)))

[Mercenary]

Have a look at Dr. Ann Feuerbach's summary on the research done to date on the word pulad:

O! I have realized what the problem is. I am sorry. It is not your fault. In India a lot of curators of museums and sekligarhs consider that pulad is फौलादा (Phaulādī). That is fact.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary,
I think you have got it all wrong.
You dont know what Robert showed me. It was a manuscript of about 500 pages, and it had nothing top do with his new book on the Jaipur collection.
Maybe I am not too bright, but wait to say so till you can prove it.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Jens
I am sorry I was thinking about pictures from Jaipur museum where depicted all of types of weapons that were in Jaipur armory. With their names.
It is a pity that we know nothing about a manuscript with over names of weapons. Science requires openness. I am sorry.

[Emanuel]

Hi Mercenary,

My comment was concerning the similarity between the sound of the words. You presented a dissection of phauladi (fulad, pulad) as originating from "phul"-flower. Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

On the phul-katara, Elgood includes a few lovely examples in his catalogue of the Jaipur Court. They all have floral hilts. This fits the definition of "phul"-flower.
So phul-katara just refers to a dagger with floral hilt.

Cheers!
Emanuel

[ariel]

AFAIK, pulad or pulad is just steel ( see al Kindi). Damascus steel ( wootz) is pulad-e johardar, or just Johar in Arabic ( see the Saudi Arabian book).
For some reasons, northern consumers of Indian/Persian wootz adopted an abbreviated version of the full definition and wootz became bulat etc.

Thus, IMHO, Indo-Persian terms Fulad/ pulad /phulad have nothing to do with wootz ( they may, in Russia or the Caucasus), and your Phul-katara is just a blade ( wootz or not), but with a flower for a pommel. As noted by Emanuel, see Elgood's book.
Phonetic and spelling similarities can play dirty games with non-specialists :
" a thief stole my wife's stole", " You might unleash your might" etc.

Anyone wants to correct me?

[Mercenary]

Hi Mercenary,
Other researchers dissected it to the roots "pu" "lauha" - purified iron, which is a close description of crucible steel.

There is a problem. Neither Jahangir nor Abdul Aziz nor present-day sekligarhs whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who worked in the court armories still) never read the articles of "other researchers" or some researchers else or any Internet forums )). They just say "fauladi". That is all.
You know what Indians added to the crucibles with the iron? What was considered as a secret? If you know, then you will understand why a crucible steel was called "flower steel", "fruit steel". It was magic for Indians then.

[Miguel]

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh? ;)
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter. :shrug: :)
Well said David my feelings entirely
Miguel

[Mercenary]

Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools:
[jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade].
It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade.
JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

[Ian]

Mercenary:

I'm having trouble following your comment here. Can you explain please.

Ian.

Ok. No need to read my article or to study sources or to go to India to learn something. Let's play a game. A small equation with one unknown for primary schools:
[jeweled dagger WITH phull-katara] = [dagger decorated with gems] PLUS [X-blade].
It is known that dagger has gems (in which zone a dagger can has the gems?). And it is known that KATARA is a blade.
JEWELED DAGGER WITH SOME BLADE. And wherein "phul" relates to steel. Well?

[Mercenary]

Dear Ian

I am sorry for confusion. I meant following idea. In context the term "phul-katara" itself was used only once or twice. The most part of cases when it was used are within a sentences as "jeweled dagger WITH phul-katara" or "with costly phul-katara". If you analize the text it becomes clear that "phul-katara" could not be an independent kind of daggers. It refers to the quality of the blade.

[Mercenary]

Let's continue
Dear Mercenary:
book about Hindu weapons informs us that Bichwa is Bichwa in Mysore and Hyderabad , but Baku in Kannada and Vinchu in Marathi.
But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!

Very nice. But they are just various names of arachnids. The name of the dagger was written and sounded some different as "Bichū'ā" not as "Bichū" (for example in Panjabi) and ment the verb "to sting", "to damage". So "Bichū'ā" could be any dagger. For example:

[Jim McDougall]

Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh? ;)
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter. :shrug: :)


This quote and these views are probably the most essential and pertinent words that have been posted in this thread, which as I have said, is on a most intriguing, if not vexing, topic.

In these kinds of discussions I think it is key to exchange ideas as well as supportive data in a very courteous and objective manner. It is good to see discourse like this which prompts contemplation and often better understanding of a very complex topic.
Keep it going and avoid taking anything personally......its actually a pretty phun and phascinating discussion!!! :)

[Jens Nordlunde]

David,
I find what you wrote very interesting, and very valid, but at the same time I find that the names, like the ones Robert Elgood has given of the same dagger types are important.
One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.

To the other participating members.
Some collectors are interested in the way the weapons look/where used, while others are interested in the names and the origin of the names, and to my oppinion everyone should be given free hand to follow his interest, and not from the start be met with mistrust - maybe some of us could learn a bit here and there along the road.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Dear Mercenary:
And, BTW, Portugese version of the origin of Indian Pata traces it to the ( surprise, surprise!) Portugese word for paw:-)
But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!
Again very interesting!
But pata without any surprises first of all meant "wooden rapier". And there are a lot of information about pata-khilana and so )))

[Mercenary]

But if that what tickles your fancy, good luck to you!
Ariel, thank you a lots! Good luck!

[fernando]

Again very interesting!
But pata without any surprises first of all meant "wooden rapier". And there are a lot of information about pata-khilana and so )))
May i ask which illustrated dictionary you took this picture from ?
Is this the entire image in the book, or did you cut the lower part of the fencer's body with his 'weapon' for posting. It would be interesting to date this drawing. There could be a connection between this so called Pút-a and the appearing of the pata as an actual weapon; minding that the first examples that are recorded and available, first quarter XVI century, had a turned and carved wooden guard (gauntlet).
It would be pertinent to consider such evolution, as we may see in such earliest examples the presence of European blades, those from navigators of the XV-XVI centuries transiction.
On the other hand, if the drawing in the illustration is posterior, we may then consider that had either device had its own course.
Below two pata examples: one considered by its owner as the oldest and most primitive example known, with its gauntlet in wood, reinforced with iron straps and a later one with a 'basket' guard, in which a leather reinforcement was applied, now disappeared. The first one with an early European blade and the second with a weak one, of local production.
(Collection Rainer Daehnhardt).

.

[Mercenary]

Dear fernando
These are unrelated things: dictionary of Urdu of 1838, and picture from book about Khonds of 1864. Both references and picture are in the article. I am sorry I can not put it all here. May be some later all of the articles in "Historical Weaponology" will be free.
In sources (not illustrated books about weapons) there are a lot messes about pata. Some times it is a wooden sword, some times a steel one, some times a rapier and some times a staff. I wrote about it and tried to explain but it is still not very clear. Very weak spot. This requires further research.

[David]

One collector concentrates on weapons from one area, and others on weapons from another area. If we know the names used in the different areas we will also know it is the same weapon they are writing about, even without a picture of the weapon.
Well i'm not really sure why this would be particularly important since we all pretty much have the capacity to share images of our weapons from any place in the world in an instant. What we most likely discover in this exercise is that people from one area call that weapon a "sharp pointy piece of metal" in their own dialect while people in another area call it pretty much the same thing in their own dialect.
That said, i was clear that i do find this game of names interesting and their linguistic roots can indeed be fascinating and sometimes even enlightening. However, i am not a linguist and do not pretend be capable of tackling the intricacies of the field enough to be able to distinguish between true root word connections, sound alike only similarities and outright coincidences of arrangements of letters. My ears are always open, however, to those who have a better grasp on this study though i remain skeptical that anyone can make irrefutable connections to most of these word roots we encounter. Even the true experts tend to disagree on their theories. And even if they are absolutely correct, knowing the root words are meaningless if you don't understand the original intent of the culture that used that word when naming that weapon. Usually that can only be met with assumption or speculation. Names and categories seem to have become far too important to many collectors here at the sacrifice of what i personally feel are much more important aspects of the weapons we collect. But as is always the case, to each their own in their direction of study. I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it. :)

[Mercenary]

I just don't believe that naming the thing is the key to understanding it. :)
But naming the thing incorrectly is nothing altogether. Without any hope for finding the keys for understanding at all.

[A. G. Maisey]

As Jens has pointed out:- different people have different interests, and the whole of these different interests contribute to a holistic understanding of the item in question, be it an edged weapon or be it a teddy bear.

A correct understanding of the name of a weapon can sometimes indicate, or suggest, the origin of the weapon, or its method of use, or its mode of wear. So even though I am most definitely in the camp of those who oppose the "name game" for its own sake, I do support research that will give us a better understanding of the how, where, and why of a name that is applied to a weapon, or anything else for that matter.

In this thread there seems to be some discussion surrounding the words beginning with "P", "PH" and "F".(Fulad/ pulad /phulad)

Mercenary, since we are reading words that have been romanised from other scripts, would it be possible for you to clarify the pronunciation of words using these spellings?

Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

[ariel]

Names are important. They are part of the object per se as well as the culture it came from. Remember Grimm Brothers? If you know the name of Rumpelstilskin, you have power over him.
Names were given to the weapons by masters and owners, they often have meanings and clues that the form and the function would miss.
David and Alan , both "krisologists" would undoubtedly bristle an the erroneous use of a name for a tiny hook at the base of a kris, and rightfully so! ( they are probably already seething by now, since I wrote kris, and not keris:-)))

Koummya and shibria are just curved knives, a variants of jambia ( or khanjar:-)
But just their names give us full info about the culture they came from and their appearance.

Stone ( of blessed memory) put Parang Nabur from Banjarmasin and Minasbad from Bicol in the same picture: one of his few obvious errors. Would he do it if he knew that they had different names? But they looked so much alike ! :-)

Names are integral parts of everything around us, they are what we use to orient ourselves in this confusing world. Semasiologists maintain that most of our problems stem from our imprecision in defining what exactly each and every word means.

Ignorance of a correct name, or just mis-spelling can land us in St. Paul, MN instead of San Paulo, Brazil :-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Ariel:- names are important.

In fact, I'll go further than this:- words are important.

Words are used to transfer ideas from one person's mind into the mind of another, if our use of words is imprecise all sorts of errors can occur.

Because of this, I can assure you that I will never bristle at an incorrect use, or knowledge of, keris terminology, in fact, I actively encourage the use of English words when we are using the English language as a medium of communication.

The truly important thing is that we understand one another, not that we all understand every minor usage of language.

But I must admit, I do find the pointless use of misunderstood words to be just slightly annoying, most especially so when a good English word will transfer an idea more effectively.

Perhaps the second paragraph of my post #49 may give some indication of my position in this matter of names.

[Jim McDougall]

This thread gets better and better!!!
Not only is it fascinating to see the perspectives on linguistics and terminology concerning references to these weapons. It is amazing to see these old references as shown by Mercenary...I had no idea of this early type of wooden weapon in India in this manner, and that certainly is interesting to see this explanation of the 'pata' term.

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ?
The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame.

As has been shown, the importance of broadening our understanding of the various terms and names used for these arms is essential as we look to early narratives and works describing them. Having some sort of cross reference to align these would be ideal, but a daunting undertaking. Still, once through the philosophy of all this, any advance toward compiling this material will be useful in my opinion.

Mercenary, you seem to have a considerable acumen toward the weapons of India as well as the linguistics and etymology of the languages. I hope you will keep us advised of the article you are working on and its progress. I always am delighted to see attention to the weapons of India, and encourage any work toward better understanding the inherent complexities surrounding them.

[Jens Nordlunde]

To my opinion the forum members interest in the subject is admirable, but I do find the criticism of Marcenary's idea a bit overdone.

Mercenary has come up with an idea. So let him work on it, and when it is done, and you still want to criticize it, you can do so – but I find it is a bit early to do so now.

Jens

[ariel]

Thanks, Alan!
I am glad we are on the same page.
And this is the reason why I strongly insist on any interpretation of any foreign name to be done by a native speaker or, at least, by a foreigner fluent in the native language and immersed in local culture.


The thread on "Tilang Kemarau" amusingly illustrates the point :-)

[fernando]

... Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".
Rather complex indeed Alan, this thing of the written language.
This "Ph" meaning "F" issue is long gone in other written universes.
... If i am allowed to widen this problematic to other languages to which romanized transcriptions are also practiced, should we also take into account that nations, ones more often than other, introduce reforms in their own orthography. In Portugal, like in other countries here around, the Greek digraphs were abandoned and replaced by simple graphemes; these odd names meaning that, for one, the "PH" was replaced by the "F". Thus we have that, we may (and do) have works in our libraries, namely chronicles from the discoveries period, where we either read the same terms with both "Ph" and "F", depending on the date of the publication.


.

[fernando]

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ? ..
Yes Jim, from his collection, as mentioned, and also from his books. I don't recall having seen patas when i had the previlege to visit his collection; which is no surprise, due to the myriad ot items that my eyes had to look at, in so little time.

... The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame...
Yes, things are not yet clear. But that would be another deal.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[Ian]

Alan, you are so correct.

I had the good fortune to have been born and educated in the same English-speaking environment as you. For the last 35 years I have lived in the US, and had to learn a number of different English dialects and idiom. While UK and US English are close in many respects, there are obvious and not so obvious spelling and grammatical differences that must confuse the heck out of people for whom English is a second language. And then there is Ebonics, or African-American English, that has some substantial differences from Standard American English. I remember too growing up in Australia and hearing "Pidgin English", a condescending colonial form that was taught to Australian indigenous people, and those in Papua New Guinea and neighboring islands.

And these are just some of the major dialects. Within the UK there are many dialects also--Hiberno-English, West Country English, Scottish English, etc.

Like you, I would hate to try to master English as a second language. Idiomatic use must be very challenging to the newcomer. It must confuse folks enormously when confronted with phrases such as: to "take two bites at the cherry" [and no, this is not a sexual reference]; to "be down in the dumps;" to "take a "butcher's [hook]" at something; to "cut the ground from under your feet;" to "take the bull by the horns;" something that "does the trick;" someone is "mutton dressed up as lamb;" someone is "no spring chicken;" "to argue the toss;" "to blow the whistle;" and so on...

Ian.

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ian, very true, and then we have Cockney rhyming slang --- your 'butchers hook' is an example --- that was very much in use amongst people of two generations before my own. I can remember my grandfather and couple of his mates having running conversations in this art form, that nobody had a hope of understanding except the participants.

[ariel]

The vocabulary of old swordmakers all over the world was largely metaphoric. All those Sossun Pattas , Kirk Nardubans, Pesh Kabzes, Bichwas, Jamadhar Kataris etc., did not describe particular weapons in their dry engineering terms, but rather as esthetic/religious/poetic entities.

Without thorough immersion into their contemporary atmospheres ( further complicated by linguistic problems), one cannot fully understand the multilayered depth of meaning of the peculiar names given to old elongated and sharpened pieces of steel.

Even the names of such simple daggers as janbiya and shibriya do not signify "just a knife" :-)

The "name game" is not a useless exercise as some of us think: it is a window into the mind of old masters and warriors.

Through a glass, darkly.....

[fernando]

... I would hate to try to master English as a second language...
Specially if you have to deal with British english and later struggle to converse in American english, "aggravated" by the diverse levels of education; this starting from a native language that has little or nothing to do with it. Still is fascinating when you learn all those by ear from the beginning, no school involved, just trying to express yourself with what you have at hand. Needless to say that the range of self learning resources is nowadays so much larger with the Internet.

...Idiomatic use must be very challenging to the newcomer. It must confuse folks enormously when confronted with phrases such as: "take the bull by the horns" ...
Ah, we also use that one over here :cool:

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I believe I can accept the blame for first coining the term "name game".

At least, I had never heard it before I myself used it, and I first used it perhaps 40 odd years ago.

The intent encaptioned in the term was not to denigrate the diligent research of those scholars who seek to interpret and understand the terminologies applied to weaponry --- and for that matter, other examples of the material culture of foreign places, but rather to illuminate the total and absolute futility of attempting to identify the "correct" terminology applied to any item in the absence of a good working knowledge of the culture, society, history and language of the place concerned.

Further, any terminology that may be perceived as being a probable "correct" terminology must be fixed in terms of time and place, for the very obvious reason that time distorts perception, and that which is accepted as accurate today has only about a 45% possibility of still being accepted as accurate in 50 years time --- at least this appears to be so in the field of medicine, and by extrapolation can probably be considered to be so to a greater or lesser degree in other fields.

The meanings of words change over time, as does the way in which constant meanings are understood, thus if it can be shown that a particular name is correct for any object, that correctness must at the very least be fixed within a framework of time and place.

For example, if it can be shown that the accepted name for a particular object was "Whatsit", that accepted name must be qualified in terms of time and place by the affixation of historical and geographic parameters. To do less than this is not simply sloppy, it is close to rabid stupidity.

Thus, our Whatsit becomes "an object known as a Whatsit during the 13th century in Shaftsbury, Dorset, England". Of course supporting references and/or evidence are provided.

As an example of the way in which meanings can become lost or can change I would like to use the case of the keris, variant spellings of creese, kris, cris, and a few more that do not readily come to mind. At the present time we have a number of other words that can be used to refer to the keris:- dhuwung, kadgo, curigo, wangkingan, cundrik, pusaka, and that is only in Javanese.

However in this same language of Javanese, prior to about 1600, it is probable that none of those names would have referred to a keris as we know it now. Good candidates for the "correct" name for the Modern Keris, and other keris-like objects , in pre-1600 Jawa were "tewek" and "tuhuk", but we do not really know with any certainty whether this presumption is correct or not.

So, I put it to you:- the "name game", when understood as I intended the phrase to be understood, is something worse than useless, however, diligent research into terminology by dedicated scholars is not the "name game", and must never be thought of as such.

[Mercenary]

You know if you study ethnic weaponry seriously than you have to join to one of serious disciplines: or history of art or ethnography. If you don't do it then you will be able to publish only beautiful pictures. There is nothing wrong but for what?

Without thorough immersion into their contemporary atmospheres ( further complicated by linguistic problems), one cannot fully understand the multilayered depth of meaning of the peculiar names given to old elongated and sharpened pieces of steel.
Many thanks Ariel again. This is what I consulted before with some serious ethnographers about. They advised me: you should not to make new "right" classification. It will also be bad as other ones. Just show how Indians looked at their weapons, what they felt and how they explained it. It is what I am working on.
The article we discussed here (thank you all, I saw how it was hard for some of you) is an article about military (warriors) practices of North India of 1600-1800. This article was reported (and published) at 5th International Science-practical conference, May 2014 in the Military-Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineer and Signal Corps (Russia, St.Petersburg). The second part of the article (about kinds and names of weapons) was reported at 6th conference, May, 2015. You know when you are researching in the fields such as of the using weapons it is very important to know what kind of weapons was used (while you have for it only the mix of names and languages).
Some of this information was published in "On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types" in "Historical Weaponology" #1, 2015.

[ariel]

Alan,
There was no attempt to assign the blame for the " name game". In my defense, I didn't even know that you were the culprit:-)
But you have made my point very well: I qualified the requirements by mentioning " immersion in the contemporary atmosphere", and your example of "keris" names does it beautifully.
.
This is exactly the reason why IMHO the " name game" has to be played as part of the holistic approach to the overall study of weapons: it is a reflection of the societal view of them. We are in complete agreement.

And this is why it needs to be played by people like yourself, at least in the field of Javanese kerises.


Having read a boatload of books about ottoman-to-indian swords , I definitely know more about them than the rest of the University of Michigan faculty, students, their significant others and pets :-))))

However, I am completely unqualified to add anything new to the field beyond what can already be found in Stone, Pant and Elgood.

A rather silly example: I can proudly advance a hypothesis that Indian " kirach" or "kirich" is just a mis-pronounced Turkish " kilij", i.e. just a "sword". However, in the absense of even rudimentary knowledge of any "indian" language and phonetics such a "discovery" would be plainly laughable.

[A. G. Maisey]

Looks as if we're in agreement Ariel.

Your "kilij" is not an isolated example, SE Asian weaponry is full of such probable mispronunciations or misunderstandings.

Still, one thing continues to bother me, and that is the use of the term "name game" to refer to serious investigation, as well as to uninformed application of names for less than serious reasons by less than serious people.

Personally, I would much prefer the serious researchers to be carried in a separate bucket to that which contains people who want a name at any cost, so that the relevant item can be filed into the "correct" pigeonhole.

[Emanuel]

Hello,

Mercenary, leaving your "primary school little game" aside...

A variety of Sanskrit dictionaries define kattara as simply dagger:
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=kattara&trans=Translate&direction=AU.

Kattara is not just the blade. In the 16th-17th Northern Indian context it appears to have been a court dagger worn in the sash with a narrow, piercing blade. This is also clear from the Ain-i-Akbari, which lists katara as a "long and narrow dagger".

I have not yet read your article, but here are additional sources to study.

The Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri (Memoirs of Jahangir) includes a number of references to the phul-kattara being gifted year after year at the New Year's feast. Sometimes it is noted as just a phul-katara, other times it is specifically qualified as a phul-katara studded with jewels.

The full text is accessible here in a variety of formats: https://archive.org/details/tuzukijahangirio00jahauoft and the text is searchable.

Some passages essentially repeating the same structure, with some variations:


This idea was a very good one, and on this account, on the 6th of Day, at the hour fixed upon, I despatched him in happiness and triumph. I presented him with a qaba (outer coat) of gold brocade with jewelled flowers and pearls round the flowers, a brocaded turban with strings of pearls, a gold woven sash with chains of pearls, one of my private elephants called Fath Gaj, with trappings, a special horse, a jewelled sword, and a jewelled khapiva, with a phill katdra.


Nur-Jahan Begam prepared a feast of victory for my son Shah Jahan, and conferred on him dresses of honour of great price, with a nadiri with embroidered flowers, adorned with rare pearls, a sarplch (turban ornament) decorated with rare gems, a turban with a fringe of pearls, a waistbelt studded with pearls, a sword with jewelled pardala (belt), a phul Jcatdra (dagger), a sada (?) of pearls, with two horses, one of which had a jewelled saddle, and a special elephant with two females.


The next day I sent a phul-katara (dagger) studded with valuable jewels to Burhanpur to Khan Jahan.

he waited on me, and presented as an offering 1,000 muhrs, 1,000 rupees, 4 rubies, 20 pearls, 1 emerald, and a jewelled phul katara, the total value being 50,000 rupees.
Additional translations of the text are available here:
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Fauth%3D110%26work%3D001


On Yādgār ‘Alī there were bestowed a horse with a jewelled saddle, a jewelled sword, a vest without sleeves with gold embroidery, an aigrette with feathers and a jīgha (turban ornament), and 30,000 rupees in cash, altogether 40,000 rupees, and on Khān ‘Ālam a jewelled khapwa or phūl kaṭāra (a sort of dagger) with a pendant of royal pearls.

My fortunate son, Shāh-Jahān, sent with him the brother of Afẓal K., his Diwan. As Qubu-l-mulk had shown attachment and desire to please, and repeatedly importuned me for a portrait, I presented him, at his request, with my likeness, a jewelled khapwa, and a phūl kaṭāra. 24,000 darb, a jewelled dagger, a horse, and a dress of honour were also given to the aforesaid Mīr Sharīf.
Elgood documented what was shown to him in Jaipur as phul katara. They are dagger with narrow piercing blades, with floral hilts. Some examples of these might have been jeweled, and some might have crucible steel blades.

I am well aware of the addition of a variety of plant material to the crucible loads to impart carbon to the iron. That does not mean flower dagger = wootz.

All the best,
Emanuel

[Mercenary]

))
THE JAHANGIRNAMA
Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India
Translated, edited, and annotated by Wheeler M. Thackston
FREER GALLERY OF ART ® ARTHUR M. SACKLER GALLERY
S}nithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
in association witFi
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
New York ® Oxford

jewel-studded khapwa with a phul-katara, p.148
jewel-studded khapwa with a phul-katara, p.154
a jeweled dagger with a phul-katara, p.180
a jeweled khapwa with a phul-katara, p. 293
a jeweled khapwa with a phul-katara, p.303
a royal dagger with a phul-katara, p.394
a jeweled khapwa with a phul-katara, p.429

Try more. Good luck!

[Mercenary]

Dear colleagues, just smile ))))

[Mercenary]

But I'm not kidding. Why in Ain-i-Akbari there are nothing information about the dagger "phul-katara", while it was an ordinary item for gift? And a very prestigious gift for the first persons? Although Abu-l Fazl says even about "karmahi" - very rare but real weapon?

[ariel]

First of all, not every weapon known to us by its ( presumed) name was mentioned in that book.
Second, this book listed weapons, not their modes of decoration.
No sense listing a dagger with a flower-like handle, since there must have been examples of the same dagger without it, or with handles of a variety of different styles.

[Jim McDougall]

First of all, not every weapon known to us by its ( presumed) name was mentioned in that book.
Second, this book listed weapons, not their modes of decoration.
No sense listing a dagger with a flower-like handle, since there must have been examples of the same dagger without it, or with handles of a variety of different styles.


Very sensibly noted.

[Mercenary]

First of all, not every weapon known to us by its ( presumed) name was mentioned in that book.
Second, this book listed weapons, not their modes of decoration.
No sense listing a dagger with a flower-like handle, since there must have been examples of the same dagger without it, or with handles of a variety of different styles.
So it is no separate kind of dagger. This is progress.
What do you think were there any different types of hilt decoration at Jahangir court?

[Mercenary]

They are dagger ... with floral hilts. Some examples of these might have been jeweled,
I think that such daggers are very beautiful. Can I see some of them?
And be so kind what are you mean by "floral hilts"?

[ariel]

Floral hilt is a hilt with a flower ( or flowers) as its main decoration.

[Mercenary]

Floral hilt is a hilt with a flower ( or flowers) as its main decoration.
O! I see! I have realised why at Jahangir court all the daggers were with phul-katara:
(pictures from Robert Hales's book)

[Mercenary]

More:

[ariel]

No need to exaggerate: I said " main decoration"
The upper panel would suffice.

[Mercenary]

No need to exaggerate: I said " main decoration"
The upper panel would suffice.
Ok. So you think there are "phul-kattara" on the pictures with the upper panel?

[Emanuel]

Hi Mercenary,

We are working from two different translations of Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri (Memoirs of Jahangir). Not having access to the original text and not having a linguistic background, I cannot say which one is more correct. The translation I used indicated that phul katara can sometimes be jeweled and sometimes not.

For the Ain-i-Akbari, I used the plate from Egerton. A katara is clearly labelled.

Thank you for the excellent pictures. To clarify I would consider the bottom 3 and rightmost examples in the attached images as phul katara. The top of the hilt is clearly floral, and matches the examples in Elgood closely. Elgood used the words "gourd", "seedpod","leaves","flowers". He also comments that such hilts can be found in ivory and nephrite in some numbers and were obviously fashionable throughout the Rajput courts until later 18th-19th centuries.

There is no need to be confrontational about this topic. It was merely pointed out to you that your proof that "phul-katara" meant "wootz blade" is problematic. You derived that understanding from the similarity between the words phul=flower, with phulad (also transliterated as phulad or fulad or pulad)=steel. Then you tried to argue the relevance of this association with the use of plants in crucible steel production.

Again, Ann Feuerbach and other academics on the topic of crucible steel presented good arguments for the etymology of the word pulad (also known as bulad or bulat in Central Asia) as derived from Sanskrit for "purified iron":
पूत "pu" लोह "auha/loha" = pure/clean/purified iron.

That's all.

Emanuel

[Emanuel]

Some more of what I think of as jewelled phul katara.

[Emanuel]

Since we have two versions of the plate from the Ain-i-Akbari here, I thought I would add another from Aziz, Abdul, Arms and jewellery of the Indian Mughuls, Lahore, 1947. Originally posted by Jens. (http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4583)

(1) Shamshir, (2) Khanda, (3-4) Gupti ‘asa and sheath, (5) Jamdhar, (6) Khanjar, (7) Jamkhak (according to Blockmann; name in plate therefore wrong), (8) Bank, (9) Janbwa (name in plate wrong again), (10) Narsingh-moth (so in Blochmann; in plate the name is pesh-qabz), (11) Katara, (12) Kaman (bow), (13) Takhsh-kaman (small bow) and arrow, (14) Tarkash (quiver), (15) Paikan-kash (arrow-drawer).

Of interest here is #11, Katara. It has a jamadhar handle, but the narrow piercing blade is important.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel,
I will not get mixed up in the discussion, but no 11 as you mention has the 'katar' hilt, a rather narrow blade - but it is curved.
The 'katars' seen in miniatures from Akbar's time look more like the one at the top.
Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Discussion here continues to be interesting, though mostly of course simply perspective on a well established conundrum in the study of arms which remains perplexing. The good thing here is bringing together various examples of the semantics and transliteration issues in trying to classify ethnographic weapons, and developing a kind of status quo.

As noted, the term 'name game' is concerning to some as it suggests a less than serious concern for the issue at hand. It is however, in my opinion, simply an idiomatic term used among individuals with regard to discussion of their common interests and not significant as far as an actual practice. The discussion and study are of course not a 'game' but it is a comfortable expression used among those engaged in focus on the topic at hand.

I think that in many cases where identification and classification of weapons where there is any notable variation or exception, there should be qualifying description added. This might include a note pertaining to other matters such as alternate terms or altered description, such as 'British infantry officers straight sabre of 1780, also often termed 'spadroon'.
An Indian katar (properly 'jamadhar') probably 18th century, N. India.
In this case, more a working caption, but not misleading or confusing.

The 'phul phactor' is here seen as a bit more 'colorful' (good one on the 'price list' Mercenary:) I think the humor was missed as often the case). Here a bit more defined description might be necessary.

The idea of a compilation of weapon related terms in a glossary to be used as a cross reference is actually not a bad idea, and actually has been in degree well illustrated on this thread.
In some ways I think of some of the literature and Kiplingesque terms of the British Raj, and the use of Hobson-Jobson catalog of such terms as applied along with proper English and Indian terms.

[Emanuel]

Yes it seems like a lot of these daggers were more or less curved.

I just realized Jens, that you had posted a lovely plate from the Moser collection catalogue a long time ago.

Ultimately the name of these daggers is indeed a matter of semantics. The fact remains that they are marvellous things, regardless of what we call them :)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel, in the Aziz book you mentioned the phul-katara, it is mentioned about ten times, here are a few quotes.

Page 9. "Among the articles presented by Nur Jahan to Prince Shah Jahan on Thursday, the 27 Mirh (Xii ruling year), were a waisy-band studded with pearls, a sword with jewelled shoulder belt (paradala) and a phul-katara."
Here the phul-katara stands alone, unlike in the other places where it is mentioned.

Page 97. "WhenShah Shuja was sent on the Deccan expedition (22 Safar, 1043) he received a spaccil robe of honour with gold-worked Nadiri, a jewelled khapwa with phul-katara, a jewelled sword....."

Page 143. "The Emperor bestoved on the bridegroom [Sultan Sulaiman Shukoh, te eldest sone of Dara Shukoh] a robe of honour........a jewelled jamdhar with phul-katara........."
The plate you show in your last mail is from the Moser catalogue 1912.
Lets say that phul-katara was the flowers like on the dagger in the midle. How can it then be explained that flowers like that can be placed on a jamdahar/katar? The only place I can think of, is chiselled on the blade, gilded and with gems inlaid. But we dont know if it was so.

In the plate you showed from Arms and Jewellery there are three 'katars'.
No 5. Jamdahar. Looking like most of the katars we know to day.
no 10. Narsingh-moth. Blade narrow and curved.
no 11. Katara. Side guards bend outwards, blade as broad as the ´hilt and curved.
Here is a quote from page 53-54. "The katar or Katara is a beautiful weapon with handle similar to thar of the jamdhar, but the blade is much narrower and longer, and is curved.
Irvin quotes the following from the translator of the Siyar: 'A poignard peculiar to India made with a hilt, whose two branches extend along the arm, so as to shelter the hand and part of the arm............ The total length is 2 or 2½ feet, one half of it being the blade." It is also mentioned in the text, no quoted, that the blade is very thick with two cutting edges, having a breadth of three inches at the hilt and a solid point of about one inch in breadth.
The description above sounds more like a jamdhar, than a description of the two others.
Maybe someone saw a katara, heard the name and forun that all daggers with such a hilt must have been named the same - or found it easier to do so.
Jens

[Emanuel]

Hi Jens,

Simple answer is that I have no idea. A floral hilt on what we think of jamadhar with arm bars makes no sense.

Like you say, we dont know if it was so. We have multiple terms in English translations apparently used interchangeably (katar, katara, khanjar, jamadhar, khapwa). We still don't know if the term referred to specific handle type, blade type, curvature, thickness, or entire ensemble. The use of these terms seems to have changed over time place.

Maybe katara referred just to a narrow blade, slightly curved. Maybe not. Like most things, there were probably qualifiers to denote more specific uses (ex. slashing knife, stabbing knife, dagger, punch-dagger, etc...).

Based on the sources at my disposal, my thinking was that the term phul-katara matched a dagger that has a narrow, piercing, slightly curved blade, and some form of major floral hilt. Could be jewelled or not. Ivory, or other material like jade/nephratite.

Unless we go to the original texts and associate them with period illustrations, we know nothing :shrug:

Then again we have the Ain-i-Akbari in Urdu, and the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri in Persian covering matters in the Mughal context.

What do we have from the Rajputs?

Emanuel

[Jens Nordlunde]

Emanuel,
We dont have very much hiis early, and the drawings like the ones from Ani-Akbar would at best leave something to guessing.
There is of course the description of the katar - katara/jamdhar/narsingh-moth.
My guess is, that the Europeians choose one name for daggers with this kind of hilt - but this is purely guessing.

The katars shown in the Akbar miniatures are clearly jamdahars, and I try to research this, as there is something funny/strange, but I am not prepared to discuss anything about it yet.

A pity I did not contact you when I was in Toronto some years ago :-).

Jens

[Emanuel]

There are indeed some interesting things in those Akbar miniatures. I'm looking through the copies I found online and there is lots to extract and dissect.

A pity indeed. Next time you come by our shores, please do drop a line :)

Emanuel

[Emanuel]

Having hijacked Mercenary's thread enough (my apologies :) ), I moved discussion of Akbar's weapons specifically, here: http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20629

Emanuel

[Jens Nordlunde]

I am sorry to say that it will not happend again - a trip to Canada. I found it fantastic - but I hated the time of flying to Canada and over Canada to the west coast - thirteen hours of flying and about two hours of waiting.
So much more I regret not to have contacted you.
Jens

[fernando]

Ah, the Niagara falls, the Royal Ontario Museum, the CN tower ... all fascinating :cool:.

[ariel]

Jens, I am located in Ann Arbor, a delightful college town 1 hour drive from Windsor, Ontario.
You are alway welcome.
On top of that, I can give you a long tour of all our local microbreweries:-)

[Mercenary]

Ariel, I see you have some time. Be so kind answere my post #72 .

[ariel]

You may find examples in:

India: Art and Culture, 1300-1900.
by Stuart Cary Welch

It is available on Amazon, I just checked.

It includes the famous one with the head of his son, Shah Jahan.

[Mercenary]

You should to learn other styles of Mughal daggers decoration. There was very beautiful Animal style and others.
After that you will be able to understand that Mughals could not to present each other only "floral style" which you think was phul-katara ))

[Emanuel]

They did have a lot of figural styles :)
Those with flowers and large plant motifs would be termed "floral", and those with animals would be "zoomorphic" I think. Also a lot defying any such simple classification.

[ariel]

I spoke with native Hindi and Farsi speakers. It seems that Mercenary's theory in defining wootz as something like " floral ( or flowery) steel" is indeed mistaken.

In Hindi flower is Ful, steel is Loha. In Farsi flower is Gol, and steel is Fulad.

Thus, Fulad and Ful define two totally different things, and the only thing that "unites" them is partial homophony.

It is indeed a confusing area, especially when two languages are compared or intermixed. Even in the same language there are confusing pairs: complement and compliment, for example. Or, even worse, horse and whores:-)
People may make such mistakes very easily, especially when the language in question is not their native.

So, Mercenary, no cigar, but nice try:-)

[Jim McDougall]

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness :) theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

It seems that many of the examples shown and described are heavily jeweled, so that might lend to the idea of that kind of decoration, however with many examples of 'phul katara' it seems they are sans jewels but highly decorated florally in theme.

In a number of references from the Turk I Jahangir an account noted an offering to an ambassador to Bijapur in 1613 as a jeweled dagger, and then a phul katara along with other items. Another instance in the same account notes a 'jeweled phul katara' among items.

These suggest some disparity in the idea of 'jewelled' being the case for the term 'phul' as applied on these daggers, and perhaps stronger for the floral theme.

Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere. Possibly as it was a broader coverage of the decorative theme than just arms.
Possibly then the phul-katara designator was more arms oriented?

As far as the term phul being rooted (no pun intended) in the concept of pulad (=watered steel) as a flowered pattern seems to me tenuous at best, and particularly in the idea that phul katara must have all had wootz blades.
I think this has been well resolved however already but wanted to add these notes.

It seems clear that the debates and discourse pertaining to these kinds of disparity in terminology and classifications especially with ethnographic arms often becomes heated out of pure frustration . Altogether too many times it is misconstrued that debate or difference in opinion has to be contentious or dynamic. For me I learn more from solidly supported and presented ideas and positions. Aside from the occasional barbs, this has been a pretty good discussion.

[Mercenary]

Many thanks Jim.

But whole quotation is "the katara was a long, narrow dagger. But the word phul (flower) is obscure...". So "phul" is inextricably linked with blade. That is why:
Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere
What kind of daggers were used by Jahangir's court and what daggers were bestowed? I was able to find only two gifts. And there were nothing such as flower, roses or so. Let's see:

[Mercenary]

...

[Mercenary]

I do not think that it is could be "phul-katara" as "flower+blade". Just "jeweled dagger with some (?) blade". Not "jeweled dagger with jeweled flawored hilt with blade" ))

[Jens Nordlunde]

There are likely many names/things which are known, but which are rather diffuce to collectors.
Take kundan, many know what kundan is, but it seems as if few knows how it was made - as there are several theories.
The same goes for Phul-katara, many seem to have an idea of what it could be, but very few know what it is - when I say very few - I do mean very few - if any at all
Could be that when old Sanskrit manuscripts are translated, it will bring us closer to what it meant at the time.
Few collectors take an interest in the manuscripts translated, but there are 'tons' of them, not translated and there are 'tons' of them translated, but not yet known.
This is a lifetime study - and you will never finish.

[ariel]

Presented are several pictures of high-class daggers worn by Mughal gentlemen. However, we have no idea which of them, if any, were gifts from the Emperor.


One of the elementary rules of logic is: Absence of the evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence.



Regretfully, I agree with Jens ("This is a lifetime study - and you will never finish."} and with Jim ("phulishness"}

While it could be nice to know the truth, none of us here know Sanskrit or even Hindi and have wherewithals to crack this trivial and unanswerable question.

[Mercenary]

It should also be noted that there was a custom to call objects according to the blade material. So, for example, the term "sukhela" is not a distinct weapon type, but refers to the fact that the blade is made of "sukhela" - a combination of soft and hard iron, or, according to some sources, an inexpensive wootz steel type..."
Not everything I wrote was the wild delirium, isn't it?
With "phul katara", too, need to wait a bit...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Please Mercenary and others - when you show a quote - let us know from where it is. The title, The author, the publisher, the date of publishing and the page from where it is taken. Thank you very much.

[Mercenary]

Please Mercenary and others - when you show a quote - let us know from where it is. The title, The author, the publisher, the date of publishing and the page from where it is taken. Thank you very much.
I am sorry. I thought that all have already read this wonderful article, the link to which estcrh kindly gave in the thread "European blades in India" :shrug:
https://books.google.com/books?id=i...epage&q&f=false
Robert Elgood
Swords in the Deccan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Their Manufacture and the Influence of European Imports
in
Navina Najat Haidar, Marika Sardar
Sultans of the South: Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323-1687
pp. 218-233
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011
p.224

[David]

In Hindi flower is Ful, steel is Loha. In Farsi flower is Gol, and steel is Fulad.
This might mean little to this discussion, but i believe that "Loha" is Hindi for iron, not steel. Steel in Hindi seems to be a variation on the English word and seems to be pronounced "Stila".
:shrug:

[ariel]

"Loha" verified with several native speakers, both from the North and the South. "Stila" sounds like "indianized" English.


In any case, it is the homophony of "Ful" in Hindi and Farsi that is the point.


But the relation of Sukhela (var. Sakhela) to the current discussion is puzzling. The kind of steel used for its production is only one possiblilty, but Sukhela or Dhup as a specific name for a straight-bladed sword was recorded by Tarassuk & Blair in their Encyclopedia and by E. Jaiwant Paul in his book on Indian weapons. This "controversy" is nothing new.

That was even discussed here in passing years ago..
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10071

[Jens Nordlunde]

As far as I can see, the discussion is not running as it should.
Whatever blade you show, or whatever steel type you mention will be called something else in other parts of India.
If you really want to discuss this, you should specify which part of India you want to discuss.

Something else. Did you know that there is a place called Qandahar in Deccan? Or did you know that there is a Hyderabad in Sind?

We cant know it all. - can we?

[Mercenary]

"I'll be back" (c)
Soon )

[ariel]

Homophony can play funny games with people who do not know pertinent languages.
The same Ful in Arabic is a Fava bean. Is Ful Katara an Omani knife to be used for eating Ful Medames? Or does the latter mean Full Madams with Arabic accent? :-)))

[ariel]

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.


India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.

I have witnessed heated arguments about a "true" name: katar or jamadhar?

As Pushkin used to say about Russian revolts: " senseless and merciless".

[Jens Nordlunde]

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

[mahratt]

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.

India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.


Hi, Ariel!

I bow to your vast knowledge. But I have two questions after your busy and interesting monologue. When the last time you were in India? And how many primary sources you studied?

Best Regards

[ariel]

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

Tod got his materials on Bikaner at the end of 18 - beginning of 19 century. However, ~150 years earlier the entire armoury of Adoni was transferred to Bikaner.
God only knows how the Adoni examples influenced the Rajastani ones. But likely the Bikaner hilts ( whether reflecting pure Rajastani tradition, evolving from the southern one, or any other combination of ethnic inventiveness) that were "... exported to various parts of India" pollinated so many other places, that it might be impossible at the end to separate flies from hamburgers ( a delightful Russian saying). I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)
I remember Jonathan Barrett's talk in Timonium in which he ruefully admitted that , perhaps, only Udaipuri hilts have a chance to be firmly attributed.

[Helleri]

I think something important to keep in mind along these lines is that derivation is not necessarily tied to definition. As definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive; Whatever the common lexical understanding of a word is at any given time and place, is essentially that words definition for a given time and place.

So even though Gladius is just what a roman may have said to refer to a sword generically. Today the words association with a distinctly roman sword in common lexical understanding sort of overrides the need to delineate with words like mainz or pompie. At least in casual conversation wherein 'I know, that you know, what I mean'. And these modernized gross-generalizations and misnomers are actually helpful for expedient communication.

Even so delving a little deeper is always good to do for those interested in order to better inform deeper discussion. Just saying...'Even if it was so doesn't mean it is so' as definitions can and do change over time (given that they are just descriptions of the common and current usage of a word).

[Mercenary]

I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)
It is very nice that my many year's efforts on the Russian forum were not in vain.

[Mercenary]

One more "style". Bundi shahi )))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary,
How do you know that this is a Bundi hilt, and how old would you say it is?
From which museum is the picture?
Jens

[Mercenary]

Mercenary,
How do you know that this is a Bundi hilt, and how old would you say it is?
From which museum is the picture?
Jens

It was joke. I many times wrote on another forum that to define of the hilt style as the place of production is mostly mind game. But I was alone. Likewise I many years have been talking that in the case of Indian weapons of the 19th century we are dealing mainly with Indian souvenirs of the 19th century. I am glad that such things are now beginning to understand.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Some of the hilts can with some certainty be pointed to a specific place, but it is not easy and the uncertainty is quite big.
We know that they at Bikaner made hilts for export to other parts of India, but we dont know of it was the same hilt type they made, or if they made the hilts according to the fashion at the place where it was supposed to be sold.

[Mercenary]

Some of the hilts can with some certainty be pointed to a specific place, but it is not easy and the uncertainty is quite big.
We know that they at Bikaner made hilts for export to other parts of India, but we dont know of it was the same hilt type they made, or if they made the hilts according to the fashion at the place where it was supposed to be sold.
You are right. It would be very interesting if we can know the place of origin or the fashion at the place. But it doesn't make any sense taking into account the degree of mobility of the population of North and Central India in 18-19th.
If only local court fashion...

[Mercenary]

"I'll be back" (c)
Soon )
Not touching why in India some kind of steel was called phauladi (from "phul-" - flower) I can now confidently conclude that "phul-katara" is definitely simply a bunch of gems that was attached to a string which fastened a dagger on a waist belt :)

[Mercenary]

The same tradition was in Persia (John Chardin, Travelling to Persia, 1811) as "Rose of Dagger" and the words in Jahangir-name in Urdu have the same meaning. In Persian one I will check and let you know.

[Mercenary]

[/i]Page 143. "The Emperor bestoved on the bridegroom [Sultan Sulaiman Shukoh, te eldest sone of Dara Shukoh][i] a robe of honour........a jewelled jamdhar with phul-katara........."

Lets say that phul-katara was the flowers like on the dagger in the midle. How can it then be explained that flowers like that can be placed on a jamdahar/katar? The only place I can think of, is chiselled on the blade, gilded and with gems inlaid. But we dont know if it was so.
Jens

Jamdhars with phul-katara:

[Mercenary]

Thanks a lot for such intolerant communication with me in this topic. Because of this I got to the end of researching in this not very important for me field.

Iranian and Mughal phul-katara:

[ariel]

Not touching why in India some kind of steel was called phauladi (from "phul-" - flower) I can now confidently conclude that "phul-katara" is definitely simply a bunch of gems that was attached to a string which fastened a dagger on a waist belt :)


Taking into account that the above assertion comes from Pant who was citing Chardin, and who prefaced this statement with words " obscure" and "perhaps", the confidence of the above author seems a bit excessive:-)))))

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness :) theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'. (( this very topic, post #98))

[Mercenary]

It is very nice that in the end you always agree with me in any subject. If still in the middle of the debate you (and not only you) would be more patient we could all learn more. In any case I found out a lot of interesting things from the time of Jahangir and Shah-Jahan so it will be very good article I hope.

[ariel]

We seem to have heard multiple brilliant, conclusive and mutually-exclusive theories of the origin of "Phul kattara".

Among them a homophony of Hindi "Ful" and Persian " Phulad", allusion to the dried leaves/flowers added to the crucible for wootz manufacture, pommels with flowery figures, gem- studded katars, strings of brilliants attached to daggers etc, etc.


Perhaps, the truth is much simpler than that.

Flower(y) in a sense of flamboyant? Lavishly decorated?

( My free contribution to your future article)

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by*Jim McDougall

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness**theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

Many thanks. It was not in Pant's book. It was the note of a translator in one of translations of the Jahangirnama. Unfortunately, in another later translation, the translator clearly wrote that "phul-katara" is a pommel in the shape of a flower. A misconception took the beginning from there ((

[Mercenary]

We seem to have heard multiple brilliant, conclusive and mutually-exclusive theories of the origin of "Phul kattara".

Among them a homophony of Hindi "Ful" and Persian " Phulad", allusion to the dried leaves/flowers added to the crucible for wootz manufacture, pommels with flowery figures, gem- studded katars, strings of brilliants attached to daggers etc, etc.

In this topic you could observe the usual process of study of any problem. When the wrong versions are gradually discarding and only one are retaining in the end. Usually this process is hidden from prying eyes. But in this case you were lucky enough to witness this firsthand. It was the real research. I am very grateful to all the participants of this discussion.

[ariel]

Never have conducted any research project myself and never have witnessed it being done by an accomplished and world - renown researcher, I feel truly privileged to be given an opportunity to participate in your Master Class. I was awed by your virtuosity with languages, your fountains of ideas, and your ability to copy Internet pictures.
Certainly, your paper will make a tremendous splash!

PNAS?

[mahratt]

I think the splash will be much greater than that of the "fallen coin" ... It's nice that it is understood :)

[Mercenary]

I feel truly privileged to be given an opportunity to participate in your Master Class.

Why only my master class? There were also Jim, Jens and others - all who really tried to understand.

[Jim McDougall]

Why only my master class? There were also Jim, Jens and others - all who really tried to understand.


Actually we are all in the same class.....here we learn together!!! :)
Mercenary, looking forward to your paper and hope you will keep us apprised. I congratulate anyone and everyone who puts 'pen to paper' and admire them wholeheartedly. It takes courage and stamina to publish .
It has been a most enlightening discussion.

[Mercenary]

Actually we are all in the same class.....here we learn together!!! :)
Mercenary, looking forward to your paper and hope you will keep us apprised. I congratulate anyone and everyone who puts 'pen to paper' and admire them wholeheartedly. It takes courage and stamina to publish .
It has been a most enlightening discussion.
Thanks a lot, Jim. The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes. I had been wrong the most part of this debate, but I was able to admit it publicly. Not everyone can do as well. You pointed to my mistakes and I appreciate it. I hope the most part of topics on the forum will be lead to new knowledge and the truth.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks a lot, Jim. The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes. I had been wrong the most part of this debate, but I was able to admit it publicly. Not everyone can do as well. You pointed to my mistakes and I appreciate it. I hope the most part of topics on the forum will be lead to new knowledge and the truth.

I do too Mercenary!!! I very much appreciate the reply, and your courtesy as well as the courage to admit misperceptions or mistakes is exemplary.
Our learning here of course often extends beyond knowledge itself.

[Jens Nordlunde]

'The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes.'

No, not really, you just admit them. I have done it, and I will continue to do so. When you write something, it is with the knowledge you have at the moment, but maybe you later find out that it was wrong - so why not admit it? If we admit that we are all in a learnig session, these things will happen - even if some of the members are on a higher level than others, and that it is the members on a higher level, that are the most to make misrtakes - due to the level.

However, whichever level one is on, it should not leed to sarchasme towards other members, whichever level they are on.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I just found something about the Phul-dagger, or in this case a Phul-katar.
Wheeler M. Thackston: The Jahangirnama, Oxford University Press, 1999. page 469.
'Phul-katara..........phul means 'flower' and refers to ornate jewel-inlay work on the hilt, phul-kataras were mainly ornamental presentation items while ordinary kataras were used as weapons'.

By especially mentening jewel-inlay work, must mean that the author does not regard katars with chiselled/inlaid/koftgari floral decoration to this group.

[ariel]

Sitting in the hotel in Atlanta, waiting for a symposium that starts in 3 hours, re-reading old comments…..
Re. Posts 2,4, 29,123:

Ful-kattara is repeatedly snown in Hales ( and, I think, Elgood, but the books are far away from me at the moment) and designates a “flowery dagger”, i.e. just a dagger with a pommel depicting stone-carved bunch of flowers. No firm connection to wootz, jewels, carved blades etc.

[Mercenary]

Sitting in the hotel ...
I'm sorry, but no chance. This was examined six years ago from the text of Jahangir-name (in Persian of course) and compared with illustrations depicting specific scenes. Almost all types of daggers and court gifts have been identified. Including the "phul katara", "khapwa" and even the "royal Mazendaran dagger".

[ariel]

Well, further arguments seem to be pointless. At the end of the day, we are obligated to accept the interpretations advanced by professional researchers of Indian weapons well versed in Indian and Persian linguistics and with vast and long experience in that field.

I shall take Hales, Elgood and Jens Nordlunde any moment.

Of course, other people have a right to stick to their guns and advance novel revolutionary interpretations.

But, as my former mentor taught me, the rule #1 of any research is "It is nice to be the "first", but what really counts is to be right".

[ariel]

I am back home.
Please see Elgood’s Jaipur book, #35-38.

I think that closes the question.

[mahratt]

The book of the highly respected Robert Elgood "Arms & Armor: At the Jaipur Court, The Royal Collection", if I'm not mistaken, became available to a wide range of readers in 2016?
Did the Mercenary start this thread in 2015?

[ariel]

Mahratt,
I am purposefully not commenting on your posts. Please do not comment on mine.
Just as an aside, the last communication from Mercenary was posted yesterday, 7 years after the publication of the Jaipur book (2015).

[ariel]

I just found something about the Phul-dagger, or in this case a Phul-katar.
Wheeler M. Thackston: The Jahangirnama, Oxford University Press, 1999. page 469.
'Phul-katara..........phul means 'flower' and refers to ornate jewel-inlay work on the hilt, phul-kataras were mainly ornamental presentation items while ordinary kataras were used as weapons'.

By especially mentening jewel-inlay work, must mean that the author does not regard katars with chiselled/inlaid/koftgari floral decoration to this group.

As I have mentioned before, research in antique Oriental weapons requires expertise in two unrelated fields: weapons per se and thorough knowledge of languages in question.

Thackston is a well known and highly respected authority on Arabic and Persian languages as well on several other languages pertaining to the Islamic cultures.
However, he will be the first to admit that weapons as such do not fall into his area of expertise.

Elgood is by far the best current authority on Arab and Indo-Persian weapons. But he is very open about his insufficient level of linguistic expertise. Having recognised this shortcoming, he spent many years working shoulder to shoulder with professional Indian and Persian linguists.

This is why I put my trust in his conclusions.

And I fully agree with Jens: research is a risky business and wrong turns are inevitable. That is exactly why good professional researchers are very careful about their final conclusions, scour the literature and perform many control studies aimed at overturning their initial hypothesis. Only if the latter fail to negate their earlier results do they publish the final paper with conclusions. And if some colleague later on finds a way to disprove their conclusions, they freely admit it bruised egos notwithstanding.

[Mercenary]

This was examined six years ago
And published, of course.

[mahratt]

Mahratt,
I am purposefully not commenting on your posts. Please do not comment on mine.
Just as an aside, the last communication from Mercenary was posted yesterday, 7 years after the publication of the Jaipur book (2015).

Ariel,
I deliberately didn't quote your post. You are not the only one discussing this topic on this forum. So don't assume that I'm talking to you.

[ariel]

And published, of course.
Can you provide its link, please?
Even better, the pdf?

[mahratt]

Can anyone tell me where the PDF of Robert Elgood's book "Arms & Armour: At the Jaipur Court the Royal Collection" is posted on the Internet? Thanks in advance!

[ariel]

And published, of course.

I found it: : Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” #1.

The current confusing state of classifications, attributions, dating and definitions of old Indian weapons is firmly blamed on the “ eurocentric” approach of virtually all previous researchers. And I fully agree.
However, this is not an example of a malicious “ cultural imperialism”. This is just a reflection of an almost total absence of systematic research of the field by local authors . Europeans had to start from scratch and with very limited knowledge of the field.
With the exception of superficial and confusing reporting ( “ Ain al -akbari” , “ Nujum -al -ulum”) there are no systematic contemporaneous manuscripts dedicated to Indian weapons written by local authors. It fell to the Europeans ( mostly British) to “discover” Indian weapons and in a traditional European fashion trying to make sense out of their bewildering variety. This led not only to physical descriptions but to the names. Is it talwar or tulwar? The former is likely to be more correct, but the latter utilizes English grammatical rule of the “ u” in a closed syllable pronounced as “a(h)” , see “ mast” and “must”. Afghanis had a short sword called “ selavah” with ( often) a recurved blade, but the Brits transcribed the former as “salawar” and added familiar to them Yataghan to the confusing name. To simplify that name for the unwashed masses, a “Khyber knife” was born. One can continue ad infinitum. Pant’s 3 volume book is by and large a copy-and -paste from Rawson, Egerton and Stone. Perhaps the best book on Indian weapons written by a native Indian is a recent one by Dr. Ravinder Reddy, a psychiatrist and collector living in San Diego.

This is not peculiar to India. With the exception of Japan, Indonesia and (perhaps) Philippines there were no systematic studies of any other Oriental weapons ( please correct me if I am wrong).

In 1950’s Iranians invited a professor from the USSR ( his name escapes me for the moment) to catalogue weapons from their museums. Unfortunately, he died soon thereafter and the later book by Khorasani also copypastes whole paragraphs from other sources.

The Topkapi collection was catalogued only in 1928-9 by a German Hans Stocklein. In the 1960-80’s Unsal Ucel went back to the original collection and found inscriptions since removed by crude polishing , gems and gold mysteriously disappearing etc.

Sorry to sound “eurocentric”, but without European tradition of museum maintenance we would still be in the total darkness. We know infinitely more about old European weapons than the Oriental ones because of meticulous written records in private collections and multiple museums as well as from a multitude of books , Oakeshott being just one example.

[Mercenary]

I found it: : Russian journal “ Studies of historical weapons” #1.


No. It was published as
Kurochkin A.Ju., Malozemova E.I. "Royal" daggers of Jahangir. HISTORICAL ARMS AND ARMOUR IN MUSEUM AND PRIVATE COLLECTIONS, v. 1, pp. 67-88. Moscow. The Moscow Kremlin Museums Publ., 2018. 352 p. in Russian.

(Курочкин А.Ю., Малоземова Е.И. «Царские» кинжалы Джахангира // Историческое оружие в музейных и частных собраниях. Выпуск 1. 67-88. Москва: ММК, 2018. 352 с.)

Sorry, I couldn't find the PDF file online. I don't even have that edition on hand right now. But it's not a problem to buy books of this series in Russia. The third volume will be published in this year.

[Mercenary]

Sorry to sound “eurocentric”, but without European tradition of museum maintenance we would still be in the total darkness. We know infinitely more about old European weapons than the Oriental ones because of meticulous written records in private collections and multiple museums as well as from a multitude of books , Oakeshott being just one example.
Description of museum collections and the museum work in whole is only a small part of the science of weapons.

You are right, there was confusion with the terminology of Indian weapons and this was historically determined. But that's in the past. The problem is that this continues even now and is exacerbated by the appearance of non-scientific glossaries built randomly.

The fact is, and this is also due to historical reasons, that the study of weapons folded as a description of collections and it was (and is) not a science, but a service and an entertainment for collectors and dealers. The purpose of science is the search for truth. The goal of the dealer is to sell you as much as possible. This requires colorful descriptions and a lot of different muddy information. It warms up the market. That is why a lot of colorful albums were published instead of academic research.

The next problem is that the weapons were studied by art historians instead of real historians . Any mafia in the field of any art consists of a band of a collector, a dealer and an art historian. As a result of such “research”, we can see the appearance of strange objects at auctions, and then on the basis of these chimeras, after their legitimizing, we can see the appearance of entire groups of similar items.

Until the study of weapons is built on the principles of scientific research, we will forever be discussing here strange items from the next auction, or why in the next colorful album the same items are called differently, and different items are called by the same names.

[Mercenary]

The third volume will be published in this year.

Maybe it will be interesting. In the second issue there is an article about the talwar and its handle: when and where did it arised and what does the word "talwar" mean. In the third issue there should be an article about when, where and why straight karud-peshkab acquired a double bend. In Russian of course.

[ariel]

And all these articles will be written by the very same type of people you are describing in your previous post :-)))
All soft sciences have a good percentage of their results, discussions and conclusions based on personal prejudices, fantasies and wishful thinking. They also employ highfalutin’ words, convoluted sentences and manipulative arguments.
They are incapable of dissociating from personal tastes and ambitions and cannot employ the main scientific instrument,- the experiment. All historical sciences in the best possible case have at their disposal a bunch of quotations from the sources of unknown veracity and objects of uncertain age, origin and significance. Two different academically-minded individuals will easily produce three mutually exclusive conclusions .
In a way, they are akin to psychiatry, the last frontier of medicine. Having very limited sources of objective information, they rely on the external appearance and subjective “complaints” : how can we be certain, for example, that a patient suffers from borderline personality and not from bipolar illness? Psychiatric DSM, already in its 5th reincarnation, is a classic example of “glossary” with constantly changing subjective diagnostic criteria of diagnoses.

Egerton was the first one to compile a glossary. But he was in India for a short time and only in a small part of it. He knew absolutely nothing of anything outside its NW region, of the influence of, say, South on Deccan, of Deccan on NW and vice versa, the rest of Indian history and ad infinitum. He was simply the first, and as such poorly informed.

Stone was the next, and his Glossary is still a tremendously important but not perfect educational instrument.

Elgood stand heads and shoulders above them. His glossaries were researched to the hilt, but he repeatedly reminds the readers that much is not known yet.

Still, all three are perfect examples of earnest and honest attempts to systematize our knowledge. Their input was and is priceless. So, the word “ glossary” should not be viewed with derision and sarcasm.

All my objections to the soft side of “ weaponology” address ignorant and self-adoring publications, from articles and books , pretending to be called “ research” , resorting to omission or fabrication of what is already known, in short ,- ignorance married to deception.

I have nothing against color albums: they are better than black and white:-)

But if one wants to be engaged in real science, let him become a chemist, a physicist, a molecular biologist or an engineer. Science is a full time job. Otherwise, one should keep study of ancient weapons as a hobby and do not pretend to be a specialist. That is what I do and am happy about having a relaxing “vacation” from real science that demands from me brutal objectivity and is by definition falsifiable:-) One may be permitted to assemble examples and advance hypotheses for their potential use by the professionals. These publications may be accepted and cited, or conversely , ignored, critiqued or thrown into the garbage pile by the true knowledgeable and dedicated researchers.

[Mercenary]

Linguistics is an exact science. History is also an exact science, if historians do it, and not politicians or populists. Ethnography is generally reality itself. These three sciences are essential in the study of traditional weapons especially oriental ones.
All sciences are exact sciences if they are practiced by professionals. If physics, chemistry or molecular biology will be dealt with by art historians and other connoisseurs of beauty (or dealers in chemical reagents, synchrophasotrons or microscopes trade), then these sciences will immediately cease to be exact sciences.

[Mercenary]

"The Indian Sword" by Philip Rawson is the only book in the field of Indian weapons research that can be called a scientific work.

[ariel]

Rawson has my respect: his book was the first one dedicated specifically to Indian arms.
But to call his book “…the only ….scientific work…” is rather funny. Rawson was never interested in arms history. This book was an assignment given to him to describe the collection of the V&A Museum. He never ventured outside of it and was not even certain whether other similar collections existed elsewhere, India not even mentioned. As a result, he assigned names to different objects simply by their percent-wise representation of labels on which they were listed in the V&A archives. He was lumping mechanical damascus and wootz together: Fig.6: “ watered mechanical damascus of the Kirk Narduban pattern”, pp. 19-20 describing 4 patterns of Persian damascus: Kirk Narduban, Bidr or Qum, Begami and Sham, all of which were allegedly produced by a “method of mechanical damascus/ pattern welding” etc, etc, etc. His bibliography list doesn’t even mention books by Buttin and Stone. In short, while sorely needed in the 1960’s as the “first”, this book outlived its purpose because of not being “right”.

Having finished his assignment, Rawson published nothing more in the arms history field, concentrating instead on Oriental erotic art. The only conceivable connection between them is his repeated mention of the “ phallic energy” of Indian swords:-)

[Mercenary]

The only conceivable connection between them is his repeated mention of the “ phallic energy” of Indian swords

That is why swords and any other weapons are used in puja ceremony. The "phallic energy" - this is in short form for Europeans, so as not to explain for a long time. By the way, I'm going to explain this in detail soon. In Russian, of course.

[ariel]

In your future paper you might want to discuss sword positions on the altar: edge down on the altar might indeed signify phallic energy. But according to what is shown on the pic you posted ( the sides of the tulwar blade lying flat on the altar) male Hindu believers had Peyronie’s disease .
Feel free not acknowledging my contribution to your paper.

[Ian]

Guys, you have made your points. Move on please!

[gp]

why does this discussion and a few others , neither offence nor disrespect intended, reminds me a little of the movie "snatch"

"Just because it is written, does not make it so"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89sD6StyzXk&t=13s


https://www.spreukenengezegdes.nl/inspirerende-teksten/just-because-it-is-written-does-not-make-it-so/

☺☻☺

[Mercenary]

Just to uderstand the rules of the forum and how the moderation works here. It is OK for the forum?

In your future paper you might want
to discuss sword positions on the altar: edge down on the altar might indeed signify phallic energy. But according to what is shown on the pic you posted ( the sides of the tulwar blade lying flat on the altar) male Hindu believers had Peyronie’s disease .
Feel free not acknowledging my contribution to your paper.

[ariel]

Man, it was just a joke:-)
We all need to lighten up occasionally. Serious discussions get too heavy and oppressive:-)
You yourself use jokes and I appreciate them.
Peace?

[mahratt]

I read the previous post and wonder.
How strange... Gentlemen moderators, for my jokes you reprimand me and edit my posts. I wonder if it's because my English is so bad and my jokes are too straightforward.