What is a KARUD?!

[mariusgmioc]

Hello,

As far as I know, this word does not exist in any of the languages of the people who use the knife associated with it, and it is most likely a misnomer derived from the word "Kard" (meaning knife).

However, I have encountered this term on several occasions associated with a straight Pesh-kabz.

Is it a "correct" or better said accepted term for differentiating between a recurved Pesh-kabz and a straight one? :shrug:

Is it more than simply a straight Pesh-kabz? :shrug:

Regards,

Marius

[Kubur]

Hello,


Is it more than simply a straight Pesh-kabz? :shrug:

Regards,

Marius

Hi Marius,
I will say the same, straight with a strong flat back, one edged. But it's far from my area...
Best, Kubur

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Mariusgmioc, Looking at your other thread on the subject you are probably at the front end in this specialty, however, I spent some time in Kabul and couldn't get anywhere with Karud or Kard and like many names they don't light the blue touch paper when mentioned...it seems. This is not unusual as across the spectrum there is a lot of confusion in names of weapons especially those applied by world sword collectors which was apparently as infuriating to the old masters when concocting books about swords in the 19th C as it is now! Thus the question falls into the area of "whats in a word" for which there may be no answer.

[mahratt]

For those who are really interested in this issue is an article on this topic. After reading it one can make for yourself an opinion.

For those who are really interested in this issue is an article on this topic: http://historical-weapons.com/question-relevance-term-karud/

After reading it one can make for yourself an opinion.

[mariusgmioc]

For those who are really interested in this issue is an article on this topic. After reading it one can make for yourself an opinion.

For those who are really interested in this issue is an article on this topic: http://historical-weapons.com/question-relevance-term-karud/

After reading it one can make for yourself an opinion.

Thank you very much for the link! :)

This article would address exactly my questio but unfortunately, I could not find the article but only the abstract (which is quite interesting in itself as it concludes the term Karud exists and is correctly used to describe a straight Peshkabz).

However, I would be interested to read the arguments that led to this conclusion, as it may be based on some historical records that were flawed in the first place.

In other words, starting with flawed original information one will certainly end up with a flawed conclusion. And a flawed conclusion may easily end up being considered as the reference truth, providing it is vehiculated and publicized long enough.

Another issue is whether we should use or not a term in order to be more specific, whether that term is linguistically/historically correct or not?! :)

Regards,

Marius

[mariusgmioc]

Mariusgmioc, Looking at your other thread on the subject you are probably at the front end in this specialty, however, I spent some time in Kabul and couldn't get anywhere with Karud or Kard and like many names they don't light the blue touch paper when mentioned...it seems. This is not unusual as across the spectrum there is a lot of confusion in names of weapons especially those applied by world sword collectors which was apparently as infuriating to the old masters when concocting books about swords in the 19th C as it is now! Thus the question falls into the area of "whats in a word" for which there may be no answer.

Precisely my point!

The word "kard" is of Persian origin and simply means knife. It has become to be associated with the rather typical single edged straight triangular blade of triangular cross-section knife, of Persian origin.

Like the word "bicaq" (c with a "," underneath) means also "knife and has become associated with the typical Ottoman knife similar to a Kard, but with a slightly curved up edge towards the tip and and specifically shaped rear quillon (somehow similar to a hawk's bill, or a Yatagan hilt).

[mahratt]

As long as the article is published only in Russian. But, sure to be a variant of the English language.

And anyone interested in the matter, will be able to verify whether that term is linguistically/historically correct or not ;)

[estcrh]

Hello,

As far as I know, this word does not exist in any of the languages of the people who use the knife associated with it, and it is most likely a misnomer derived from the word "Kard" (meaning knife).

However, I have encountered this term on several occasions associated with a straight Pesh-kabz.

Is it a "correct" or better said accepted term for differentiating between a recurved Pesh-kabz and a straight one? :shrug:

Is it more than simply a straight Pesh-kabz? :shrug:

Regards,

Marius
We actually have no real proof that the term "karud" was not used by any of the people associated with it, you would have to study Persian, Afghan, and Indian sources throughly, even then the evidence may not have been written down etc. There is no proof that I know of that "karud" is a mistaken use of the term "kard", just one of several theories.

As far as I am concerned, if the term is good enough for Artzi then it is good enough for me. You have to use some term to differentiate between the two similar but substantially different forms (straight blade and curved blade).

[ariel]

Eric,

This approach is fine if we accept terms "Khyber knife or Salawar Yataghan" as an authentic name for Selaawa (or whatever other phonetic rendition to define an Afghani short sword of a characteristic form). Or using " Pulwar" to designate an Afghani version of Tulwar with a specific handle instead of a locally-used "Shamshir". Stenography has its uses and charms.

Just like you, I am also not particularly bothered by the usage of "Karud", as long as I remember that the best title for an article about it would be " Karud: a Comedy of Errors"

The "name game" is a fertile ground for pseudo-discoveries , especially if it is based on attempted phonetizations of foreign words. Professor Higgins, just like Henry Moser, never visited Afghanistan:-)

[estcrh]

Eric,

This approach is fine if we accept terms "Khyber knife or Salawar Yataghan" as an authentic name for Selaawa (or whatever other phonetic rendition to define an Afghani short sword of a characteristic form). Or using " Pulwar" to designate an Afghani version of Tulwar with a specific handle instead of a locally-used "Shamshir". Stenography has its uses and charms.

Just like you, I am also not particularly bothered by the usage of "Karud", as long as I remember that the best title for an article about it would be " Karud: a Comedy of Errors"

The "name game" is a fertile ground for pseudo-discoveries , especially if it is based on attempted phonetizations of foreign words. Professor Higgins, just like Henry Moser, never visited Afghanistan:-)

Ariel, I do not think we have to accept any of the currently used names as being "authentic", but we do need some commonly accepted terms, if not "karud" for the straight bladed relative of the pesh then what? Same for the khyber knife, khanjar, jambiya, kard etc.

When someone that I know tells me they have a "karud" I understand what they are describing, that is useful to me, were and when this name came into use is a secondary question and it is very interesting to delve into this subject but we do need descriptive terms that the majority of interested people can agree on. On another note, people who speak English as a primary language often use terms that are different than people who speak another language such as German or Italian etc.

[mahratt]

It's funny when people had the opportunity to read your article (in Russian) mentions some facts, but "forgets" to others. More slightly and respected Ariel begins to say that Alexander Burnes never visited Afghanistan (I give in article link to its word.) :)

I think it is worth to wait for the article in English, so that everyone can make about the article his unbiased opinion and decide whether one and would it term (name) correct in respect the "curved" and "direct" *;)

[mahratt]

Ariel, I do not think we have to accept any of the currently used names as being "authentic", but we do need some commonly accepted terms, if not "karud" for the straight bladed relative of the pesh then what? Same for the khyber knife, khanjar, jambiya, kard etc.

When someone that I know tells me they have a "karud" I understand what they are describing, that is useful to me, were and when this name came into use is a secondary question and it is very interesting to delve into this subject but we do need descriptive terms that the majority of interested people can agree on. On another note, people who speak English as a primary language often use terms that are different than people who speak another language such as German or Italian etc.

Absolutely right, estcrh

[mariusgmioc]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to use a term that is commonly accepted in order to define an object.

I agree that when refering to a Pesh-kabz there is more ambiguity about the type of dagger we are talking about. Is it recurved, is it straight, does it have single edge or double false edge, etc. Yet when we say Choora, for example everybody knows exactly what type of Pesh-kabz we are talking about.

So KARUD it is! :)

Maybe for you guys it was trivial, but for me was interesting and educative! Thank you for your comments. :)

I still would love to read the whole article Mahratt send us the link to, as I bet it is very interesting. I was wondering wheteher we can access somehow the Russian version and Google translate it?!
:shrug:

PS: Can we assume that the Choora is a particular type of Karud (with aparticularly shaped hilt and generally metal front bolster)?

[mahratt]

I still would love to read the whole article Mahratt send us the link to, as I bet it is very interesting. I was wondering wheteher we can access somehow the Russian version and Google translate it?!
:shrug:

My friend, I can send you my article in Russian. Send me on the forum a personal message with the name your e-mail.


Can we assume that the Choora is a particular type of Karud (with aparticularly shaped hilt and generally metal front bolster)?

If you are interested, my opinion, I think it the Choora is derived from Karud. But the Choora not equal Karud :)

[estcrh]

PS: Can we assume that the Choora is a particular type of Karud (with aparticularly shaped hilt and generally metal front bolster)?

Here is my version of the common varieties, all distinctively different enough for each type to be easily distinguishable from each other.

Pesh

Karud

Choora

Kard

Jambiya

[mahratt]

I think the most telling of all known image from Artzi:

[mariusgmioc]

I think the most telling of all known image from Artzi:

That would be also my understanding in the light of all discussed above. Both sets of photos are very clear and clarifying. Thank you again! :)

However, in your first photos, what you call Jambiya, I would have called Khanjar. For me Jambiya would be the typical Yemeni/Saudi dagger (as well as the Omani Khanjar).

What do you think about this? :shrug:

But maybe we should open a new thread to debate the difference between Jambyia and Khanjar?! :shrug:

[estcrh]

That would be also my understanding in the light of all discussed above. Both sets of photos are very clear and clarifying. Thank you again! :)

However, in your first photos, what you call Jambiya, I would have called Khanjar. For me Jambiya would be the typical Yemeni/Saudi dagger (as well as the Omani Khanjar).

What do you think about this? :shrug:

But maybe we should open a new thread to debate the difference between Jambyia and Khanjar?! :shrug:Jambiya have a single curved, double edged blade, khanjar have a double curved, double edged blade. People from Arabian regions often interchange these terms but there is a very noticeable difference between the two blade types. Jambiya and khanjar are two more examples of descriptive terms which allows people to instantly know which dagger you are describing.

Once again were are talking about how these two terms are generally used in the West by English speaking collectors and dealers etc and not by the cultures that actually used them.

Two examples from Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour By Lord Egerton of Tatton and India: Art and Culture, 1300-1900 By Stuart Cary Welch, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.)

[mariusgmioc]

Jambiya have a single curved, double edged blade, khanjar have a double curved, double edged blade. People from Arabian regions often interchange these terms but there is a very noticeable difference between the two blade types. Jambiya and khanjar are two more examples of descriptive terms which allows people to instantly know which dagger you are describing.

Once again were are talking about how these two terms are generally used in the West by English speaking collectors and dealers etc and not by the cultures that actually used them.

Two examples from Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour By Lord Egerton of Tatton and India: Art and Culture, 1300-1900 By Stuart Cary Welch, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.)

I beg to differ on this one! :cool:

Khanjar is a Persian/Arabic word and they use it for their single curved daggers.

It was imported to India together with the expansion of the Mughal Empire and so the Indians adopted the term for many of their daggers (especially those from the Northern part), single or double curved.

Restricting the term to only double curved daggers, I think would be wrong as it would exclude precisely the daggers where it originated from.

:cool:

PS: You can also check what Artzi has to say on this one too! ;)

[estcrh]

I beg to differ on this one! :cool:

Khanjar is a Persian/Arabic word and they use it for their single curved daggers.

It was imported to India together with the expansion of the Mughal Empire and so the Indians adopted the term for many of their daggers (especially those from the Northern part), single or double curved.

Restricting the term to only double curved daggers, I think would be wrong as it would exclude precisely the daggers where it originated from.

:cool:

PS: You can also check what Artzi has to say on this one too! ;)Sorry, I have to go with Stuart Cary Welch here.

His first paid position at Harvard was in 1956, as honorary assistant keeper of Islamic Art at the Fogg Museum. He later developed one of the first curricula for Islamic and Indian art. He was curator of Islamic and Later Indian art at the Harvard Art Museum, and from 1979 to 1987, he was also special consultant for the department of Islamic art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Welch taught at Harvard until his retirement in 1995, and he donated much of his collection to the school. The remainder of his personal collection was auctioned by Sotheby's in 2011. On 6 April 2011, a single page from the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp (The Houghton Shahnameh) of which Weich was the leading scholar, was sold for 7.4 million pounds ($12 million).


Do you really think that these completely different blade types should have the same name?

[Miguel]

Absolutely fascinating post Marius, something that I have wondered myself and now have a better understanding, it is better than any reference books, cant wait for the next reply. Brilliant.
Regards
Miguel

[mariusgmioc]

Sorry, I have to go with Stuart Cary Welch here.




Do you really think that these completely different blade types should have the same name?

First, they are not absolutely different.

Second,
1. What about Artzi who you cited as being very knowledgeable and thrustworthy yourself?!
2. What about Stone, page 351, and page 353 fig. 1?!
3. What about Elgood, Arms & Armour at the Jaipur Court, pages 53 and 54?!
4. What about Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, Arms and Armor from Iran, from page 219 on
5, What about Withers & Capwell, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Knives, Swords, Spears & Daggers, page 228, 229
7. What about the millions and millions of Persians who probably invented both the dagger and the word, used it for centuries and continue to use it in the present calling it Khanjar (photos 4, 5).
8. What about the millions and millions of Omanis who probably invented the specific variety of dagger (the one with the belt in the photo 3), used it for centuries and continue to use it in the present calling it Khanjar?!
9. What about the millions and millions of North Indians who used it for centuries and continue to use it in the present calling it Khanjar whether curved or double curved (photos 1, 2)?!

:cool:

However, ultimately it is a matter of choice, and the choice is yours. If you want to give Stuart Cary Welch credit over the millions of Persians who invented the dagger and the word...

PS: The definition for Khanjar you used in your posting (the excerpt from the book) perfectly describes my examples as well. According to the definition you mentioned they are all Khanjars. In English "recurved" simply means curved backwards, NOT double curved. Moreover, the Persians and the Arabs who are credited with originating this word, would not refer to a double curved dagger since they don't use such a dagger but a simple "recurved" one (as in photos 3-5).

[estcrh]

In English "recurved" simply means curved backwards, NOT double curved.
I think you are wrong, recurved refers to a blade that curves twice.

From Arms and Armor By DK Publishing and Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India By E. Jaiwant Paul.

[mariusgmioc]

I think you are wrong, recurved refers to a blade that curves twice.

I thought exactly the same... until I bothered to check with some dictionaries of English language. Check it yourself!

And even if it were to mean double curve, what about the millions of Persians, Arabs and Indians who use this type of dagger with single curve and call it Khanjar?!

Try telling an Omani that he is using a Jambyia because an academic in UK, who knows better, decided this way!
;)

PS I have the book of Jaiwant Paul, but he makes the distinction because of the hilt, not because of the blade. I have been to India and I can assure you the Indians (at least all to whom I spoke with) do not distinguish between single or double curve dagger that has the typical grip and call them both either Khanjar or Mughal dagger providing they have the "pistol" hilt. However they call Jambyia the Persian Khanjars with "I" shaped hilt.

Photo taken in the fort museum of Jodhpur. All daggers on the left were called Khanjars. The two Karuds, were called Peshkabz.

[estcrh]

And even if it were to mean double curve, what about the millions of Persians, Arabs and Indians who use this type of dagger with single curve and call it Khanjar?!

Try telling an Omani that he is using a Jambyia because an academic in UK, who knows better, decided this way!
;)When it comes to daggers "recurved" means double curved. As I mentioned already, in English speaking countries it is not what the local people call a certain weapon that determines the eventual description in English. What an Omani calls his dagger is a seperate issue. Since many of these weapons are used in several countries what determines which particular culture gets naming rights?

[mariusgmioc]

When it comes to daggers "recurved" means double curved. As I mentioned already, in English speaking countries it is not what the local people call a certain weapon that determines the eventual description in English. What an Omani calls his dagger is a seperate issue. Since many of these weapons are used in several countries what determines which particular culture gets naming rights?

1. "When it comes to daggers "recurved" means double curved." Now you are redefining English language to serve your purpose. ;)

2. "Since many of these weapons are used in several countries what determines which particular culture gets naming rights?"I would assume the country that originated the word... and the weapon. In this case the Persians/Arabs. Do you know better? :shrug:

3. You are deliberately avoiding the issues for which you don't have convenient answers. Like what about references I quoted? What about the straight bladed or single curved Indian daggers on the left side of the photo in the museum in Jodhpur?

4. It is as I said: you are free to call them as you wish.

5. Have a nice weekend! :)

[Kubur]

Please guys, it's just fun. We have the same passion.
It's not so important.
I think we have plenty of threads on this topic.
khanjar is like kancar in Turkish or even kinjal, a dagger.
Just bigger than a knife and curved I don't know... no??? :shrug:

[estcrh]

1. "When it comes to daggers "recurved" means double curved." Now you are redefining English language to serve your purpose. ;)

I only point out what is available as far as references go, here is an example. While you may have your own thoughts as to what "recurved" means, when it comes to dagger blades it is a common term for a double curved blade, Runjeet uses the term "recurved" to describe a double curved blade. Artzi uses "recurving" to describe a double curved blade as well.

As for "khanjar", for many people it describes a recurved dagger as opposed to a single curved dagger.

[ariel]

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.


In Persia, khanjar is always double edged dagger, and pesh Kabz is always single edged. In Aravia proper , what is called khanjar in Oman ( Eastern part of the peninsula, under significant Persian influence) is called Janbia in Yemen ( purely Arabic Western part of the same peninsula). Balkan localities used the same term, -khanjar or hancer, - to designate what we call Yataghans. Caucasians used the word Khanjali ( modified Khanjar) for their straight daggers, and it was further simplified to Kindjal (likely) by the Russians.

Bichaq, pichaq, pichok, p'chak are just dialectic variants of the same Turcik word for "knife" , whereas Kard and Kord are just Persian and Tajik words for the same "knife". In practice, Uzbeki P'chak and Tajik Kord are physically indistinguishable despite passionate mutual dislike between these two ethnicities. There are more differences within each designation due to what village it was produced in, than between the two of them.

Karud ( Pesh Kabz with straight blade) is just one of the phonetic renditions of the Persian word Kard as heard by the Europeans: it was also recorded in the literature as Kared and Karde. And Choora ( a local analog of the"Karud" that is endemic to Eastern Afghanistan/Northwestern Pakistan, Khyber Pass) is the same "knife" , only stemming from Hindi language.

The bottom line, 90% of all short bladed weapons in the Indo-Persian areal are called just "knife", and the fancy differences we so passionately argue about are due to the ethnic roots of their owners: Hindi, Turcik or Persian.

The same eating implement to cut steaks or spread butter on a toast will be called messer in Germany, nozh in Russia, knife in England, couteau in France and sakin in Israel. These days all of them are likely to be cheaply mass produced in China or Brazil.

Is it worth arguing or writing articles about?


Cheer up! :-))))))))))

[mariusgmioc]

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.


In Persia, khanjar is always double edged dagger, and pesh Kabz is always single edged. In Aravia proper , what is called khanjar in Oman ( Eastern part of the peninsula, under significant Persian influence) is called Janbia in Yemen ( purely Arabic Western part of the same peninsula). Balkan localities used the same term, -khanjar or hancer, - to designate what we call Yataghans. Caucasians used the word Khanjali ( modified Khanjar) for their straight daggers, and it was further simplified to Kindjal (likely) by the Russians.

Bichaq, pichaq, pichok, p'chak are just dialectic variants of the same Turcik word for "knife" , whereas Kard and Kord are just Persian and Tajik words for the same "knife". In practice, Uzbeki P'chak and Tajik Kord are physically indistinguishable despite passionate mutual dislike between these two ethnicities. There are more differences within each designation due to what village it was produced in, than between the two of them.

Karud ( Pesh Kabz with straight blade) is just one of the phonetic renditions of the Persian word Kard as heard by the Europeans: it was also recorded in the literature as Kared and Karde. And Choora ( a local analog of the"Karud" that is endemic to Eastern Afghanistan/Northwestern Pakistan, Khyber Pass) is the same "knife" , only stemming from Hindi language.

The bottom line, 90% of all short bladed weapons in the Indo-Persian areal are called just "knife", and the fancy differences we so passionately argue about are due to the ethnic roots of their owners: Hindi, Turcik or Persian.

The same eating implement to cut steaks or spread butter on a toast will be called messer in Germany, nozh in Russia, knife in England, couteau in France and sakin in Israel. These days all of them are likely to be cheaply mass produced in China or Brazil.

Is it worth arguing or writing articles about?


Cheer up! :-))))))))))

Couldn't agree more!
:)

Have a happy weekend!

[mariusgmioc]

I only point out what is available as far as references go, here is an example. While you may have your own thoughts as to what "recurved" means, when it comes to dagger blades it is a common term for a double curved blade, Runjeet uses the term "recurved" to describe a double curved blade. Artzi uses "recurving" to describe a double curved blade as well.

As for "khanjar", for many people it describes a recurved dagger as opposed to a single curved dagger.

It appears that what was originally a mistake, it has become to be accepted as it is. Wouldn't be neither the first, nor the biggest.

But why shall we continue propagating it? Why shouldn't we straighten things up?

Have a look at Ariel's message and have a nice weekend!
:)

[estcrh]

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.

Ariel, what I have been discussing is the use of certain terms by Western collectors, dealers etc. This often has nothing to do with the terms used by local inhabitants. These Western terms are simply a means to categorize weapons (and armor) which can be easily identified by various traits.

These include kard, karud, pesh kabz, choora, khyber knife, khanjar, jambiya, khanjarli, chilanum, bichwa etc.

When someone insists that their choice of terms is the "correct" term they are not understanding the difference between historical accuracy and Western catagorization, there is often a big difference.

I do not speak Persian, Turkish, Arabic or any other language besides English, but I do know that just because current residents of these countries use or do not use a certain term does not necessarily mean that people who lived a hundred or more years ago used or did not use the same terms and I could really care less as far as catagorization goes.

These is no need to get angry or upset when someone decides to use a specific desctiptive term that they do not choose to use, no one is forcing anyone to use the same term but the reality is that different terms do exist and are used, there is usually no absolute right ot wrong.

[estcrh]

It appears that what was originally a mistake, it has become to be accepted as it is. Wouldn't be neither the first, nor the biggest.

But why shall we continue propagating it? Why shouldn't we straighten things up?

Have a look at Ariel's message and have a nice weekend!
:)What makes it a mistake, no one is propagating anything, it is a commonly accepted description and it has been for as long as I can remember.

Anyone who wants to think of a single curved bladed dagger and a double curved dagger as being the same thing is free to do so, I and many others do not think they are the same and we place them in different categories.

[ariel]

Eric,
Perhaps I misunderstood the aim and the meaning of the above argument. So let me explain myself.

Sometimes it is appropriate and respectful to use the native term because it had meaning for the original owners: Janbia for the Yemeni Arabs because it was worn on the side, shibria for the Syrian-Palestinian Arabs because it was of a size of hand span, Laz Bichaq because it immediately terminated arguments about its ethnic roots etc. etc.


And if in some cases we need a special term for our own internal use, then the use of stenographic definitions like "Karud" instead of " Pesh Kabz with straight blade" is also fine with me , irrespective of its historic veracity. This is why for example I continue to use "pseudo-shashka" for some Central Asian long bladed weapons because it right away defines their appearance. Please believe me, I know they have nothing to do with Caucasian " Sesh Huo " or how else we transcribe it:-)

As long as we understand the difference between the two approaches and do not create "pretender" entities.

Classifications and names are created to give us common road posts, not to confuse us.
There was a Viennese philosophical school of semasiology: they maintained that most problems in the world stemmed from different meanings people had for the same phenomena. They might have been partially correct:-)

If other people disagree with me, I am fully open to changing my stance.

[Jim McDougall]

Marius, I must say I admire your zeal in your approach in the study and investigation of ethnographic weapons in pro active participation in threads and discussions!
In the case of what we 'seniors' have come to regard as 'the name game' however, the discussion of most of these linguistic, transliterated or otherwise multiple errored terms usually becomes specious fodder for veiled arguments(=debates).

There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references.

Though it would be great to have a sort of 'thesaurus' with a compendium of these many terms, it would be highly improbable as there are as many names for these as there are variations of all, and the task becomes almost infinite.

As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct.
As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

From a scholarly point of view however, it is certainly prudent, if not advisable to learn which terms are flawed linguistically, and if possible, the correct or alternate terms. The reason for this is that in the study of weapons historically, it is important to understand which terms might have been used at a certain time, in certain regions, for a certain form. This may be complicated ethnographically as often, numerous languages may be used there.
When we are investigating a weapon without advantage of some sort of depiction, we must rely on descriptions, and terms, and there is the rub.

With that, I hope I can emphasize, in these kinds of matters.....nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.......and both often in many cases.
There is absolutely no reason for argument or debate in discussing subjects as dynamic and subjective as with these terms, and the weapons they are used to refer to.
It is more important to view instances of use, period, locations etc. as variants and to place them comprehensively as cross referenced as possible.
Perhaps we might find some resolution together toward that 'thesaurus'!!! (if that is the right term:) ).....maybe I should say dictionary???

[ariel]

Agree.
Literally a minute ago I have learned from Lotfi that term Shibriya that IMMO ( In My Mistaken Opinion) was limited to Arabic daggers of a very specific contour coming from Northern Arabia ( Syria-Palestine). Apparently the same name is used for the daggers of a different configuration coming from Aravia Proper, and the term refers strictly to their size, and not their origin or configuration.

If possible, we really must classify weapons by their specific name, but it is possible only in limited circumstances. Indonesian weapons of absolutely identical appearance carry different names not only on different islands, but in different valleys of the same island. And, as Jim noticed, the overlays of poor transliterations by different European informers further created non-existent entities and masked the real ones. Is choora, churra, ch'hurra, chooree, churay the same dagger or 5 different ones? And what did the Afghanis meant by this name: a short dagger from the Khyber Pass or the massive "Salawar Yataghan":-)

This is not limited to exotic locations and days of yore: even now the same English word pronounced by the locals in different US States will be transcribed differently by a foreign observer. And if there are more than one of them, we will have a list longer than the Constitution:-))

Still, this "name game" may be a lot of fun on occasion. Just let's not go to the extremes with it: every convoluted and sophisticated argument in favor of a specific name is easily destroyed by a single example from the left field:-)

Cheers!

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim and Ariel,

Thank you very much for your opinions, with which I couldn't agree more!

As I said before, sometimes the debate itself is more important than reaching a conclusion, and even more so so when a clear cut conclusion is nowhere in sight.

Between black and white there are thousands shades of grey.

Have a nice weekend! :)

[ariel]

Have to correct myself: instead of "list longer than the Constitution" it should read " longer than "Fifty Shades of Grey":-)

[Miguel]

Guys,
Cool it, it's not worth arguing and creating "bad blood". It is just a name game, and most of it is determined by the locality of objects under discussion.


In Persia, khanjar is always double edged dagger, and pesh Kabz is always single edged. In Aravia proper , what is called khanjar in Oman ( Eastern part of the peninsula, under significant Persian influence) is called Janbia in Yemen ( purely Arabic Western part of the same peninsula). Balkan localities used the same term, -khanjar or hancer, - to designate what we call Yataghans. Caucasians used the word Khanjali ( modified Khanjar) for their straight daggers, and it was further simplified to Kindjal (likely) by the Russians.

Bichaq, pichaq, pichok, p'chak are just dialectic variants of the same Turcik word for "knife" , whereas Kard and Kord are just Persian and Tajik words for the same "knife". In practice, Uzbeki P'chak and Tajik Kord are physically indistinguishable despite passionate mutual dislike between these two ethnicities. There are more differences within each designation due to what village it was produced in, than between the two of them.

Karud ( Pesh Kabz with straight blade) is just one of the phonetic renditions of the Persian word Kard as heard by the Europeans: it was also recorded in the literature as Kared and Karde. And Choora ( a local analog of the"Karud" that is endemic to Eastern Afghanistan/Northwestern Pakistan, Khyber Pass) is the same "knife" , only stemming from Hindi language.

The bottom line, 90% of all short bladed weapons in the Indo-Persian areal are called just "knife", and the fancy differences we so passionately argue about are due to the ethnic roots of their owners: Hindi, Turcik or Persian.

The same eating implement to cut steaks or spread butter on a toast will be called messer in Germany, nozh in Russia, knife in England, couteau in France and sakin in Israel. These days all of them are likely to be cheaply mass produced in China or Brazil.

Is it worth arguing or writing articles about?


Cheer up! :-))))))))))

Very well put.
Regards
Miguel

[estcrh]

And if in some cases we need a special term for our own internal use, then the use of stenographic definitions like "Karud" instead of " Pesh Kabz with straight blade" is also fine with me , irrespective of its historic veracity. This is why for example I continue to use "pseudo-shashka" for some Central Asian long bladed weapons because it right away defines their appearance. Please believe me, I know they have nothing to do with Caucasian " Sesh Huo " or how else we transcribe it:-)

Ariel, your use of "pseudo-shashka" is a perfect example of "categorization" This is certainly not how the people who used these would have described them but for categorizion purposes it is a very good description. I will eventually have a "Pseudo-shashka" or "Shashka (pseudo)" Pinterest board, I will use your discription in order to inform people that while these are similar in appearance to Caucasian / Circassian shashka they are a completely separate type.

There seems to be here a lack of understanding about picking the best term to use for categorization as opposed to the most historically accurate term.

[estcrh]

There is little agreement, if any, on the correct or proper use of the terms for many specific weapon forms in the ethnographic arena, and it is compounded as noted, by perpetuation in many long venerable references .................................................. .......................................

As far as collecting arms and the study of forms as it has been known since the somewhat formalizing of the pursuit through the 19th century, a rather informal collective glossary of terms has been established. While these are largely broadly accepted as descriptive terms, many are admittedly not entirely proper or correct.

As a medium for discussion however, and leaving semantics aside, it has proven best to use these as 'working' terms to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

Jim, you have distilled the argument down to its basic roots. While not all people will use the same terms we all individually decide what terms are appropriate and we can also decide to change the terms we have previously used when we find a term we think is more accurate or appropriate.

[mahratt]

In fact, "psevdoshashka" is not the correct term. Correct to say - "Afghan shashka". We're talking "Bukhara shashka". "Pseudo" - is something unfinished. Afghan shashka - shashka by all indications.

[estcrh]

In fact, "psevdoshashka" is not the correct term. Correct to say - "Afghan shashka". We're talking "Bukhara shashka". "Pseudo" - is something unfinished. Afghan shashka - shashka by all indications.Actually "pseudo" means that something is not authentic etc, such as these types of shashka are not real Caucasian shashka...etc.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=estcrh]Ariel, your use of "pseudo-shashka" is a perfect example of "categorization" This is certainly not how the people who used these would have described them but for categorizion purposes it is a very good description. I will eventually have a "Pseudo-shashka" or "Shashka (pseudo)" Pinterest board, I will use your discription in order to inform people that while these are similar in appearance to Caucasian / Circassian shashka they are a completely separate type.
Y
There seems to be here a lack of understanding about picking the best term to use for categorization as opposed to the most historically accurate term.[/QUOT

Actually, this is not my invention: it belongs to Iaroslav Lebedinski.
He knew full well that it had nothing to do with real shashka, but used it as a stenographic term.

It is in a way like Karud: does not exist as such, but is awfully convenient for quick chat.

[mahratt]

Actually "pseudo" means that something is not authentic etc, such as these types of shashka are not real Caucasian shashka...etc.

Ок. But we do not say "psevdocaucasian shashka" :) Lebedinsky coined the term "psevdoshashka", knowing very little about those items. Meanwhile, Afghan shashka - a shashka on all grounds.

"The double standard"? :) We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? :) She does not look like a Caucasian shashka. It does not bother anyone;) Afghan shashka we seek to be called -" psevdoshashka". Where is the logic? :)

One might think that there is no term "Karud" or use the term "psevdoshashka", remaining at the beginning - the mid-20th century. Can "hide one's head in the sand". And it is possible to generalize the available data, to think (and not only use books Lebedinsky and Stone) and deal with complex issues.

Good read other people's books. But it is even better think independently.

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=estcrh]Ariel, your use of "pseudo-shashka" is a perfect example of "categorization" This is certainly not how the people who used these would have described them but for categorizion purposes it is a very good description. I will eventually have a "Pseudo-shashka" or "Shashka (pseudo)" Pinterest board, I will use your discription in order to inform people that while these are similar in appearance to Caucasian / Circassian shashka they are a completely separate type.
Y
There seems to be here a lack of understanding about picking the best term to use for categorization as opposed to the most historically accurate term.[/QUOT

Actually, this is not my invention: it belongs to Iaroslav Lebedinski.
He knew full well that it had nothing to do with real shashka, but used it as a stenographic term.

It is in a way like Karud: does not exist as such, but is awfully convenient for quick chat.


Ariel is quite right, and it was Lebedynsky who first coined and used the term ("Les Armes Traditionelles de l' Europe", Paris, 1996) and it seems it derived from difficulties determining whether 'shaska -like' sabres from Afghanistan or Uzbekistan were actually of the Caucasian group. As I recall, in trying to determine one of these cases around 15 years ago, it remained hard to say, even in discussion with Torben Flindt and Prof. Lebedynsky.
It seemed agreed that these were in fact NOT of the Caucasian group as with the 'Bukharen sabres'.
The use of the 'psuedo' addition as far as I have known was never used again in this parlance with shashkas, but Ariel recalls it just as I do from those research days of some time ago.

PS, I would very much disagree with Lebedynsky ' not knowing very much about shashkas etc.!! When I first communicated with him back in the early 90s it was in research on Cossack and Caucasian shashkas, on which he had written a book. He is a prolific author who has written an incredible number of books on these and many arms topics, often influenced by his Ukrainian ancestry and pronounced study on these arms. I recall research on the Zaporozhian Cossacks he assisted me with many years back.

Mahratt, of course the word 'shashka' is as I have understood, a Russian term for 'sword', and many stirrup hilted sabres of the Russian army are equally called shashka ("Russian Military Swords" 1801-1917" Eugene Mollo, 1969).
While these Afghan sabres have the cleft pommel and overall similarity TO the Caucasian forms, most authorities I believe generally hold them to be outside the 'shashka' and Caucasian scope.

[mahratt]

Mahratt, of course the word 'shashka' is as I have understood, a Russian term for 'sword', and many stirrup hilted sabres of the Russian army are equally called shashka ("Russian Military Swords" 1801-1917" Eugene Mollo, 1969).
While these Afghan sabres have the cleft pommel and overall similarity TO the Caucasian forms, most authorities I believe generally hold them to be outside the 'shashka' and Caucasian scope.

Dear Jim!

We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka.

Maybe I'm wrong to say (excuse me my bad English) :(
I meant that Lebedinsky knew little about the Afghan shashkas, which he called - "psevdoshashka".

[Jim McDougall]

Dear Jim!

We're talking about "" Bukhara shashka". Why no one says it - "psevdoshashka"? She does not look like a Caucasian shashka.

Maybe I'm wrong to say (excuse me my bad English) :(
I meant that Lebedinsky knew little about the Afghan shashkas, which he called - "psevdoshashka".

Hi Mahratt,
I think that's what all the fuss was about. The Afghan and Uzbek were indeed 'different', and the Bukharen sabre with very different hilt was of course obviously not of the same category. While most of his work in those times focused on the Caucasian and Russian versions of shashka, he did indeed have excellent knowledge on the full spectrum of swords he included in his writings.
The thing was, in those times, these were remarkably esoteric weapons, and there was so much disagreement and debate on the proper classifications of these. It was in these times that Torben Flindt very sagely told me, 'weapons have no geographic boundaries' !
I think the use of the 'psuedo' appellation was borne out of those particular frustrations and disagreements and knowing that any designation was bound to be challenged.

[mahratt]

Hi Mahratt,
I think that's what all the fuss was about. The Afghan and Uzbek were indeed 'different', and the Bukharen sabre with very different hilt was of course obviously not of the same category. While most of his work in those times focused on the Caucasian and Russian versions of shashka, he did indeed have excellent knowledge on the full spectrum of swords he included in his writings.
The thing was, in those times, these were remarkably esoteric weapons, and there was so much disagreement and debate on the proper classifications of these. It was in these times that Torben Flindt very sagely told me, 'weapons have no geographic boundaries' !
I think the use of the 'psuedo' appellation was borne out of those particular frustrations and disagreements and knowing that any designation was bound to be challenged.

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

[Ian]

Guys:

Instead of arguing with each other about semantics and getting all defensive and irritated, why don't you see what others have done to resolve issues of nomenclature in other aspects of sword descriptions? Ewart Oakeshott's widely accepted descriptions of medieval swords is an excellent example. Albert van Zonneveld took a different approach with the wide spectrum of Indonesian swords and knives.

Instead of arguing terminology, why not explore the typology of these weapons, looking for similarities that enable broad groups to be defined and then consider sub-groups? Oakeshott took a purely typographic approach to medieval swords and gave his main groupings Roman numerals, thus avoiding descriptive terms altogether.

Function is determined by how the weapon is put together, and what is not functional is essentially decorative. Sometimes we focus on the decorative aspects and lose sight of the functional. Typology as applied to Oakeshott's classification is mainly concerned with function.

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

This would be a YUUUUUUGE contribution to the field and would put to rest some of the arguing on these pages. You guys are smart and experienced in this area of weaponology. Should be easy-peasy for you.

Ian.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, ie, you agree that if we are learned new details (who did not know Lebedinsky and Torben Flindt), it is logical to go to a more accurate title? Especially if we quietly use the term "Bukhara shashka"?

I understand all the complexities of Central Asia and the close ties of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It is clear that in Bukhara could use "Afghan shashka", and in Afghanistan - "Bukhara shashka." But it does not change their origin. Bukhara shashkas do in Bukhara. Afghan shashkas did in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one has yet proved otherwise.

Yes, I agree that many readers here may not know those authors if they are not involved with these fields of study. As I noted, Iaroslav Lebedynsky is an extremely well known author of arms references published in France.
Torben Flindt, wrote the seminal article "Some Nineteenth Century Arms from Bukhara" ( in "Islamic Arms and Armour" ed, Robert Elgood, 1979). This has been to date the single specific reference to edged weapons of these regions.

In searching our archives, a thread from 2001, ' Bukhara and Swords', I found a most appropriate passage noted by Philip Tom, one of our most notable scholars on these and Asian arms,
"...on shashkas, my fond hope is that some ethnically non specific term can be devised for use by collectors to describe these sabres, so that the language of one ethnic group isn't used to generally name similar looking weapons of different cultures".
-Philip Tom, Feb. 12, 2001

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.

PS Ian we crossed posts.......VERY WELL SAID!!!

[mahratt]

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

Ian.

Ian,

That's what I'm talking about. There is a "shashka". And everyone knows features shashka. Within the concept of "shashka" can be distinguished: Caucasian shashka, Russian shashka (Cossack), Afghan shashka and Bukhara shashka. It's so logical.

"What's in a name? That we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." (с)

[mahratt]

Personally I think that for Bukharen sabres, that name stands. As for the Afghan and Uzbek swords they should be considered guardless sabres from those regions. It was specified to me that the term Afghan in the 19th century was primarily a 'political notion' and many Uzbek tribes were fitered into Afghan regions, so classification to one or the other would be pretty much futile.


Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom? :)

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, have shashka there are certain signs. And Bukhara shashka, and afghan shashka (even more so) to meet these criteria. Why do we then have to call them the sword, if their symptoms - these are signs of shashkas? Because so decided Lebedinsky and Philip Tom? :)

By the way, a country Afghanistan - there is virtually present borders since the beginning of the 19th century. Afghan shashkas that Lebedinsky described as "psevdoshashka" - have been known since the late 19th century.

Perfect!

[mariusgmioc]

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

:cool:

[mahratt]

Bravo, Marius! Exactly noticed :)

[Ian]

Gentlemen:

I have started a new thread (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21764) to help move the discussion of shashka in a new direction. This thread has several requirements that should be read carefully before participating. It invites some different thinking to what has been expressed here.

The discussion here seems to have reached a point where no new information is being provided. Please transfer further discussion of these swords to the new thread.

Ian

[ariel]

Marius,
There is such thing as parallel development: weapons of similar appearance existing completely independently in different cultures .
Medieval European Bauernwehr or Langes Messer, or just Cord was a carbon copy of the Afghan Khyber, even though people in both localities were totally ignorant of each other's existence.
Shamshir and tulwar, on the other hand, owe their existence to the same proto-ancestor: nomadic saber. Over the centuries they have acquired some specific features ( indian ricasso, curvature ) and handles, but were still close enough to mix blades and handles with abandon. Figiel's examples testify to it.

The same is true about khanjars: some decorative differences in decoration, but close enough to share the moniker.

Not a miracle: the above examples all belong to the Indo-Persian areal: ie a mixture of both traditions, cultures and technologies.


In case of Central Asian guardless sabers one has to distinguish between two possibilities.

Central Asian Uzbeki ( Bukhara is within this tradition) examples owe their existence to a proto-family that included Khybers. We have discussed it somewhat in the thread on Indian "pseudoshashkas":

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21429

They have absolutely nothing to do with Caucasian examples. In fact, somewhat similar Persian or Indo-Persian examples were shown in Figiel's collection catalogue.

The other subtype of was exactly the one addressed by Lebedinski in his book as "pseudoshashka": late 19th century Afghani guardless sabers, mostly with Mazar-i-Sharif arsenal marks ( just a stamp, origin in Mazar-i-Sharif not implied). Those were clearly influenced by Russian weapons, but preserved enough "ethnicity" to stand on their own, and be recognized immediately as coming from Afghanistan and not the Caucasus.

Neither example is a true shashka. Shashka is a peculiarly Caucasian weapon. Period.

The Afghani "military" examples are pseudo-shashkas because they imitated some Shashka features, and were clearly distinguishable as NOT Caucasian ( see Eric's dictionary entry explaining the meaning of pseudo)

The Central Asian examples have no relation whatsoever with the Caucasus, being a clear example of parallel development. We dub them "pseudoshashkas" simply because of their external similarity and for want of a better term. The minute some Central Asian researcher uncovers their true name, we will discard the "pseudoshashka" moniker in a second.

[Jim McDougall]

To me if it looks like a Shashka and cuts like a Shashka, then it must and should be called a Shashka.

Why "pseudo"?!

Them maybe we should call all Indian Khanjars "Pseudo-Khanjars" because Khanjar is a Persian word and the Indian Khanjars are somehow diferent from the Persian ones?!

Or shall we call all Indian Shamshirs "Pseudo-Shamshirs" simply because Shamshir is a Persian word and weapon?!

:cool:

Hi Marius,
Very well noted, and if you might briefly look at my post #48, you will see that I mentioned the likely reason for the 'psuedo' appellation in this case with the reference mentioned. I also noted that the reason that classification never became used elsewhere afterwards was because it was not in keeping with the proper use of the word as an adjustment and thus renders it a moot point.
However, as often the case, we 'seniors' such as Ariel and I :) sometimes use the term when referring to that particular reference by Iaroslav Lebedynsky from those researches nearly 20 years ago .

I would like to highly commend Ian's outstanding solution to bring the shashka discussion to its own table on another thread so as not to continue clouding the meter of this thread. Each of these topics have promising merit, so I hope you and others will join over there as I hope to as well.

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate! :)

[mariusgmioc]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate! :)

[Jim McDougall]

Again very interesting explanations from Ariel and Jim. Thank you!

I will follow with great interest the newly opened debate! :)



I just read through Ariel's very thorough explanation.......superb!!!
That is pretty much 'textbook'!
Now, we leave this thread to original topic, and the shashkas to that thread.

[mahratt]

Jim, Ariel read a lot of books. But after writing the books passes time. But science does not stand still. All the time there are new data. Or are old data that previously did not notice

[ariel]

I'd really love to know what new data have appeared to disprove my analysis.

And what old data did I miss.

One lives, one learns:-)

[mahratt]

I'd really love to know what new data have appeared to disprove my analysis.

And what old data did I miss.

One lives, one learns:-)

Do not worry. Soon you'll know :)

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, Ariel read a lot of books. But after writing the books passes time. But science does not stand still. All the time there are new data. Or are old data that previously did not notice


Actually in the many years I have studied arms, I too have been through many books on virtually every field at one time or another. I have well known the earliest and often used references as well as the ongoing references which have been published in my own times as well as many of the authors who wrote them.
Quite true, the understanding of material in virtually every field does not 'stand still', but constantly expands as more research continues. That is what we are all doing here, and together.

The purpose of discussion is to share and compare information, with the very point being that making that material collectively known in one dynamic and comprehensive group, we can properly evaluate the entire corpus of data.

Personally I consider our threads and the interaction between participants to be 'discussions'.....NOT debates, which are typically heated exchanges whose purpose is to disqualify one side or the other. That kind of polarized exchange is completely useless in our combined efforts here especially when personal attacks ensue.
In discussion, if one disagrees or has more pertinent or updated information, then it is presented for all to better formulate and change or reinforce positions held.
Personal barbs do nothing but mute understanding and rational evaluation by amplifying emotion and rancor.

Having noted these views, I would like to thank everyone here who indeed do adhere to topics, courtesy and constructive DISCUSSION.
I learn every day from the valuable material and observations you guys place faithfully in these pages. :)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mahartt, I may be thrown of this forum, for what I will be saying - but I think you are more than arogant, and I do think you ought to give Jim and Ariel an exchuse.
Maybe in the future you should write on the Russian forums.