Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[ariel]

• On several occasions, this Forum has been engaged in discussions about a straight-bladed version of the Central Asian Peshkabz, that sometimes is referred to as a “Karud”. These discussions centered around two main questions: is the Karud indeed an independent weapon, i.e. separate of Peshkabz and, secondly, what is the origin of its name.
• Thorben Flindt and Robert Elgood (T. Flindt, “Nineteenth-century Arms from Bukhara”, in: Islamic Arms and Armour, Ed. By R. Elgood, London Scholar Press, 1979, pp. 20-29) have openly admitted that their efforts to pinpoint the origin of that name were unsuccessful, although they suspected that in some way it might have stemmed from the Persian word “kard”, meaning “knife”.

• Recently, Dmitri Miloserdov (herewith the ”Author”) had published an article in which he not only asserted the independence of the Karud from the Peshkabz, but also defined the very name of the Karud as a justifiable one due to the alleged “ historically established classification”. In support of his assertion he mentions “recently discovered data on the etymology of the word Karud.” (Д. Милосердов" К вопросу о правомочности существования термина "Каруд", “Историческое Оружиеведение”, 2015, 2:88-101;
D. Miloserdov, “ To the issue of justification of usage of the term “Karud”, “ Historical Weapons Studies 2015, 2:88-101).
• http://historical-weapons.com/wp-content/uploads/DMITRIY-MILOSERDOV-2.pdf

• This is the first and, to my knowledge, the only scientific paper specifically addressing the “Karud”. This contribution piqued my curiosity and prompted my (rather pleasant and educational) journey into the origins of that name.

• The Author starts with a long list of sources who did not use the term Karud, but referred to it as a Peshkabz. After that, he lists numerable sources that did use this term, including books and catalogues of collections by Moser, Buttin, Jacob and Stone. He also uses an English- Hindoostanee ( precursor of both Hindi and Urdu languages) dictionary published in 1820 in which the word Karud is used as a translation of “knife” (J.B. Gilchrist, “The strangers infallible East-Indian Guide of Hindoostanee multum in parvo as a grammatical compendium of the grand popular and military language of India”, London, 1820, p. 351,) as well as the book of a famous British diplomat Alexander Burns ( A.Burns,” Cabool: a personal narrative of a journey to, and residence in that city in the years 1836, 7, and 8”, Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1843 рр.274-275). In this book Burns is quoting an Afghani expression “shurt-i-karud”, meaning not slicing a melon for which one hadn’t paid yet, reminiscent of the English one about not counting one’s chickens before they hatch. These constitute the “recently discovered data on the etymology of the word Karud” on which he based his conclusions.

•

• The Author provided a highly professional and meticulous physical description of the illustrated weapons. However, I feel that he glossed over and misinterpreted one of the references that he himself brought up as an example in favor of his opinion and, as a result, the opportunity to get the correct answer was missed.
•
• He cited the 1820 book of Gilchrist (see above) that had mentioned the word “karud” as a translation of “knife”. However, he missed an interpretation of an entry from even earlier book by the same author (J.B. Gilchrist “ A Dictionary: English and Hindoostanee”, Calcutta 1787-1790) in which English words were translated into “Hinduwee, Arabic and Persian” and the native spelling was provided ( Fig.1). This is an equivalent of the Rosetta Stone, a trilingual stele that allowed Champollion not only to decipher the meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics, but also to reproduce their phonetics.
• Fig.2 shows the entry for the English word “knife” and its translated equivalents in Arabic ( marked with an “a”), Persian (“p”) and Hinduwee ( “h”). The Persian word is spelled “kard”: kaf, alef, re, dal (from right to left, of course), with no sound for “u”. But the English vocalization of this word in the Dictionary is listed as “ Karud”, with an additional vowel “u” between re and dal.
• This was strange, and therefore I asked my native Iranian colleagues to pronounce the Persian word for “ knife”. All pronounced it as Kar(?)d, where (?) is a poorly defined vowel sound, and with stress on the first syllable. However, when asked to write the same word in Persian they unhesitantly wrote “kard”. I then went to the internet and asked the same question: got the same result.
• http://www.learn-persian.com/english/knife.php
• My colleagues explained to me that Persian is a highly melodic language and clusters of consonants are just “improved” by insertion of some additional vowel sounds.
• This is a classic example of a linguistic phonetic phenomenon called “epenthesis”, the insertion of an imaginary sound to ease and improve the pronounciation of a word. It happens in English, too. For example, one of the Detroit suburbs (not far from me) is called Hamtramck, but is pronounced as Hamtramick, or Hamtrameck.
• That explains Burns’ rendition of “shurt-i-karud”, and since he never reproduced this word in the Persian alphabet, we will never know what the Afghanis or Persians were actually saying to him, only what he had heard from them.
• This also explains why Buttin (C. Buttin “ Catalogue de la collection d’armes anciennes”, Rumilly 1933, p.160) and Jacob ( A. Jacob “ Les armes blanches du monde islamique” Jacques Grancher, 1985, p.190 ) both speak about “ Kard ou Karoud” and why P. Holstein in his ” Conributions a l’etude des armes Orientales (vol.1, p.125), writes about Kared, Karoud or Kard (“le nom de Kared ne sont pas autre chose que le Kard ou Karud persan et qui sont utilisés dans l'Hindoustan”: “The name Kared is nothing other than the Persian Kard or Karud which is used in Hindustan”)

• Taken together, all these points tell us a coherent story: the so-called “Karud” (or, if we prefer Holstein to Buttin, a “Kared”) is not a real weapon or a real word. It is a product of a mistaken identity stemming from a phonetical peculiarity of Persian language and a gullible ear of European visitors to Central Asia. Professor Higgins (a phoneticist) and Colonel Pickering (a student of Indian languages) would have understood (G.B.Shaw “ Pigmalion”)

• How did we get to a situation in which a phonetic trick called epenthesis introduced so much confusion in the European books dedicated to Central Asian weapons? Who is responsible for this amusing calamity? Let us look at the chronology of its appearance.


• The suspicion will definitely fall first and foremost on Mr. Gilchist, who introduced the wrong phonetisation as early as 1787. But I do not think we can blame him for the outcome: his book was designed for the British personnel of East India Company and to a much lesser extent for the local students of Fort William College. It is quite unlikely that this book influenced anyone in Europe at the end of the 19th century. By the middle of the 19th century both Hindi and Urdu were already firmly established and the need for a dictionary of “Hindoostanee” was rather unlikely.

• “The Book of the Sword” by Richard Burton was published in 1884: neither kard, karud nor peshkabz were mentioned there.

• The magisterial “Indian and Oriental Arms and Armor” by Lord Egerton came out in 2 editions: 1880 and ( reworked and expanded) 1896. Again, no mention of karud could be found in either.

• Thus, we are narrowing down our list of suspects and are putting Henry Moser-Charlottenfels in the crosshairs. He traveled across Central Asian Khanates, Iran, the Caucasus and Turkey in 1882-83 and again in 1888. The first and second editions of his “ Orientalische Sammlung” were published in 1914 and in 1923 respectfully. Both contain the word “karud”, for the first time since Gilchrist’s books. How and why did it get there? The answer is likely to be very simple: Moser did not know any Oriental language and hired a native speaker of Persian, one Mirza Dawud, to assist him in negotiating acquisition of objects of interest, including weapons. Since Persian was a lingua franca of that area, especially among the well-off people who brought first-rate items to Moser, all negotiations must have been conducted in that language. Thus, Mirza Dawud must have told Moser the name of the object in question, and Moser transcribed his notes the way he heard it, just as Gilchrist recorded the word Kard hundred years earlier.

• However, in the most recent 1955 edition of “Orientalische Sammlung” page 382 we find a revealing statement:”…der Karud (dem persischen “Kard” entsprechend)… “ : “….Karud (corresponding to Persian “Kard”..)”.

• Following early editions of Moser’s catalogs, the name Karud was mentioned by P. Holstein in 1931, by C. Buttin in 1933 and, finally, in 1934 George Cameron Stone published his magisterial book “ A glossary of the construction, decoration and use of arms and armor in all countries and in all times”. The latter became a Bible of weapon historians, museum personnel and countless collectors. Understandably, just like any book it not only disseminated the much needed knowledge, but also perpetuated some old errors. In that case it was especially easy to occur because G.C. Stone had access to earlier books by Moser, Holstein and Buttin, relied heavily on the opinions of his agents in Europe and employed stenographic style of description. And that is whence the word Karud came into multiple books and articles dedicated to Oriental weapons.

• In summary, this account presents an analysis of early sources that led to the introduction of the term Karud into the contemporary study of Oriental weapons. I suggest that the appearance of this term was the result of an error by Europeans who listened to Persian pronouncination of the word “ kard” and “heard” the epenthesis of an indistinct vowel within a cluster of consonants. I further suggest that in Persia and Central Asia there never was a weapon specifically called Karud in local usage. This straight-bladed variant of Peshkabz was locally known simply as a “kard”, a “knife”, analogous of Turkish “ bichaq”, Uzbeki “ p’chak”, Indian “choora” or Greek “mahaira”. Whether currently we should call it Peshkabz, acknowledging the similarity of their physical structure, or Kard, acknowledging its correct pronounciation, is a matter of individual preference, although some uniformity might be useful. But all references to a special weapon called Karud have no linguistic or scientific basis and should be stricken out from professional literature.

[ariel]

Fig.2

[ariel]

Fig.1

[A. G. Maisey]

Beautiful work Ariel.

Perhaps all who dabble in strange objects from faraway places, and who wish to name those objects in a more or less accurate manner, would benefit from absorbing that which you have written here.

[Battara]

GREAT JOB ARIEL!


Many thanks! :D

[Ian]

Excellent work, Ariel. I know this issue has been bugging you for a while and it's good to see a final declarative statement on the subject.

I agree with Alan, we can all learn something from your cautionary tale of loosely translating what we hear in a language other than our own.

Ian.

[Sajen]

Outstanding research Ariel! :)

[shayde78]

Impressive.

[A. G. Maisey]

After reading Ariel's beautiful little piece of work, I took the trouble to ring a couple of friends who are much better equipped than I am to comment on the matter of Persian pronunciation.

The first is a linguist, the second has an Iranian wife.

It seems that in Modern Iranian, and also in some other Middle Eastern languages, when the letter "r" appears in the middle of a word and it precedes "d" the "r" is pronounced with a soft roll of the tongue, not a hard roll as in Spanish, or Scots, but a soft, almost imperceptible roll and that gives the perception of another vowel in between the "r" and the "d".

[estcrh]

•

•Taken together, all these points tell us a coherent story: the so-called “Karud” (or, if we prefer Holstein to Buttin, a “Kared”) is not a real weapon or a real word.

all references to a special weapon called Karud have no linguistic or scientific basis and should be stricken out from professional literature.

Ariel, great research but once again this is the "name game". No words are "real" until people accept them and start using them...the word "karud" is NOW accepted and used to describe the straight relative of the pesh-kabz...if not "karud" then what word, you do suggest that a curved bladed dagger and a straight bladed dagger be called by same name? I do not care what the natives may have called them, or were the word came from original other than for historic reasons, these weapons need names and we now have some, what is the big problem?

Take a look at the karud daggers and pesh-kabz daggers below, does anyone seriously think they are the same weapons and should all be described by the same name?

[ariel]

Alan,
Thanks for your effort. Nice to get a confirmation from yet another source.

[mariusgmioc]

Whether historically and linguistically correct or not, I see no reason why we cannot use the term "Karud" to name a specific type of knife that otherwise lacks a specific designation.

If we use the historically and linguistically correct term "Pesh-kabz," it will be rather ambiguous as we won't exactly know whether it is a straight blade knife or a recurved one.

If we use the even more historically and linguistically correct term "Kard," it will be even more confusing as it may refer to almost any type of knife from the Indo-Persian area of influence.

However, naming it "Karud," everybody will know what we are talking about.

Or at least I will... :)

PS: I think Estcrh was trying to point to the same idea since we had a discussoin on this topic in an earlier thread.

[ariel]

Eric and Marius,
I think you are misinterpreting the point. I do not particularly care what should we be calling it ( see the last paragraph of the posting). I was just suggesting what we should NOT call it. The moniker "Karud" is not a real word: it is just a phonetical error, a misprint so to say. No matter how convenient it is for us, it is IMHO rather silly to invent a separate weapon based on a peculiarity of Persian pronounciation of the "r" and "d" combination ( see Alan's entry).
Personally, I would prefer to call it "straight-bladed Pesh Kabz". Calling it "Kard" ( correct spelling) will confuse it with the established and correct name for a different dagger. Still, I might accept it if there was a consensus, but do not see why we should use a silly mippselling ... o-o-ps.... my bad:-)

[Jim McDougall]

This work by Ariel is really sort of a 'textbook' or classic example of serious arms study in depth analysis and investigative deduction. What I appreciate most is the well structured, thought through and well referenced detail as he explains the development of his theory.

These kinds of situations regarding 'what to call' a certain weapon form are very well known in studies of ethnographic weapon forms where instances of transliteration, and misunderstanding of linguistics or phonetic characterization become established terms in 'western' use. These kinds of situations occur even with European arms through vernacular terms or lore pertaining to various persons, events or places associated with certain form or style in a weapon, (i.e. Pappenheimer; colichemarde etc.).

It seems this instance, with 'karud' recalls the circumstance which I would call 'the scimitar syndrome' :) where a phonetic corruption of a word or term results in term use for a form of weapon being used, rather vaguely, where there is no particular weapon in actuality existing.
The term scimitar is generally held to drive from Persian (again) 'shamshir', referring of course to these often deeply curved sabres. According to Burton (1884, p.126), the word resulted from Greek interpretation and with their not having a 'sh' sound in their language. From there it entered the European context which evolved into 'cimiterre' and 'sauveterre', finally into scimitar.
Indirectly it presumed to describe Turkish sabres and broadly oriental forms of sabre but in broadly collective way. The term 'scimitar' became a romantic description used dynamically by writers to portray exotic, flashing, curved sabres of basically non specific form. It is essentially a word to describe a type of sword which did not specify a certain form, only that it was a curved sabre of exotic form.

The 'name game' has been discussed often on these pages, and while there is a notable polarity in the article being examined by Ariel and his in depth analysis of it here, the end result is a comprehensive and most constructive look at these situations.

As has happened with various sword forms such as 'kaskara'; 'nimcha'; and 'flyssa' among others, none of these is known regionally by those terms, and the list goes on. These have become 'collectors terms' which in turn have become key semantically in the discussion and description of these distinct forms in the world of arms scholars.
To try to change these at this juncture would be not only counterproductive but disastrous as we could no longer simply use the known term.

While still using these various terms in the capacity in which they have become known in 'our vernacular' , it is wonderfully appropriate to have the background historically available, not only in the development of these weapons, but in the etymology of the terms they are called by.

I always applaud the courage of authors in publishing their work, and here both Dmitry and Ariel for venturing into this analysis of not just a weapon form, but the etymology surrounding it.

[Mercenary]

•
• Fig.2 shows the entry for the English word “knife” and its translated equivalents in Arabic ( marked with an “a”), Persian (“p”) and Hinduwee ( “h”). The Persian word is spelled “kard”: kaf, alef, re, dal (from right to left, of course), with no sound for “u”. But the English vocalization of this word in the Dictionary is listed as “ Karud”, with an additional vowel “u” between re and dal
Ariel, excelent work! You are talented reviewer. My thougts about kard/karud are the same. But in fairness I should add that in arabic script for Hinduwee between two consonants may be different vowels which are not written. Between "re" and "dal" there may be "a" or "u".

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

This is a great in depth study into the whats in a word(letter) syndrome. There is a small pile of weapons across the Ethnographic stratum which have such pickled wording and spelling as to be a veritable knot of muddled and mixed up mess. It is a brave researcher who will take on any of this centuries old train crash.. In his dissertation Ariel shows how to go about unpicking the puzzle. I can think of a dozen or more twisted or misapplied words for various weapons that we know little about..and noted by Jim above . The word Nimcha, for example, is just one baffling arrangement...often caused by Ethnographics experts and authors who transcribe these errors into their work from previous authors.

Perhaps the thread should be better termed ..the.. What's in a Word and any such muddles can be added onto it and see where the thread is after a year or two... it could be an epic. :shrug:

[kai]

Great work, Ariel!

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Mercenary:- I believe that you will find the unwritten vowels to which you refer are certainly non-existent in script, but exist only in speech, where they are identified as "allophones". In other words, the vowels do not exist, they only appear to exist because of pronunciation.

An allophone is a variation of the phoneme, and this variation can be inconsistent, varying from geographic location to geographic location, and forming a contributing factor to regional accents, it can even vary from person to person where it can assist in identifying an individual speaker.

This occurs in all languages.

(a phoneme is a unit of sound in a particular language; an allophone is a variation of a spoken phoneme)

My apologies for the pedantry, but my post #9 was the short version of a 20 minute lecture.


Ariel:- I am 100% on your side of this debate, not that I have much interest at all in kards, or karuds, or cards, or careds, or gareds, or pesh-kabz either for that matter, but I do have an interest in language.

What I can see here is something that has existed in my own field of interest (the keris) forever. Whole Ensiklopedias have been written that rotate around this variation in name and pronunciation, and what we have at the present time in the field of keris study is a number of kinds of Collectorise --- or Kulicterize if you prefer --- where the words used by one group of people are unrecognisable to another group of people.

However, in any attempts to achieve conformity in the written representation of a spoken sound we do encounter some insurmountable barriers.

Then there are other difficulties when we come to the term of reference used to name or describe any physical object.

Although I do try to be precise in my own communication, I still sometimes fail in this.

It is reasonable to accept that others can be less than precise also, provided that clarification can be achieved in discussion.

[estcrh]

Eric and Marius,
I think you are misinterpreting the point. I do not particularly care what should we be calling it ( see the last paragraph of the posting). I was just suggesting what we should NOT call it.
Actually you are telling us what we should NOT call it, but why should we stop calling it a "karud"...Ariel you can call it a "cow" if you wish but to me the straight version of the pesh-kabz is a "karud". Making up a new name at this point does not make any sense to me. There are many other weapons and armors with made up names, as long as people understand what I am describing to them I am ok with it. When I tell people I know that I have a "karud"...they know exactly what I am talking about, they do not envision me holding a pesh-kabz, you want to take us backwards in time when people used one word to describe all sorts of swords and one word to describe all sorts of daggers. I do not agree with what you are suggesting here. A karud is not a kard, it is not a pesh-kabz, it is not a jambiya or khanjar, it is a specific type of dagger, call it whatever you want but it is certainly NOT a pesh-kabz.

[estcrh]

Personally, I would prefer to call it "straight-bladed Pesh Kabz". Why should anyone use this term when we already have a perfectly good, accepted and used term...."karud". I have no problem with people pointing out the origins of "Western terms" though.

People from Europe and the US like to categorize weapons and armor by type etc. Having a specific name for this particular dagger type makes sense, lumping it into the category of "pesh-kabz" or "kard" does not help anything as far as I can see.

[Bob A]

A remarkable linguistic study, and a clarion call for controversy, elegantly wrapped in the scholastic tradition, deserves the praise that has been laid at its figurative feet.

The "name game" exists in any number of disparate fields, most frequently when objects or concepts in one culture are studied by investigators in another. It is especially rampant in areas in which the original issue has been clouded by time, or the lack of any meaningful opportunity to learn from the originators. Traditions lapse, old people die, and are replaced by youngsters no longer vested in the old ways.

The search for karud is not as hampered as it might be, as there remain living exemplars of the originating culture, although language changes over time, both in vocabulary and pronunciation, and in the changes in the object or issue. Still, it cannot be denied that in this field, as in so many others, words and ideas have been taken out of context, and have formed a sort of meta-language, filled with descriptive terms unrecognisable by those who originated the object under study.

Insofar as in most cases, language does not alter function nor reality, but merely attempts to communicate information, unless and until proper correlations can be discovered and put into use, we will continue to find ourselves enmeshed in the inaccuracies introduced by those who came before, who often lacked to information that was developed subsequent to their original research. It should definitely be noted that in many cases this subsequent information would not exist at all, had they not ventured into the unknown.

All the above merely serves as a long-winded replacement for a simple concept, which I can not claim as my own; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

[A. G. Maisey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

[Bob A]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg


OK, I'm good with that.

[Kubur]

Hi,

As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud.
I remember the kattara story...

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.

Now should we use karud or not?
I really don't know.
It's healthy to be open to changes.
If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward.

But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said.
Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange.
What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers?
kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords?
What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans.
The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers?

To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...

:)

[estcrh]

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.


I completely agree, any scholarly books, articles etc should mention the historical incorrectness of any term in common use which has a documented history but in daily life I do not think this effects anything significant.

[Mercenary]

Mercenary:- I believe that you will find the unwritten vowels to which you refer are certainly non-existent in script, but exist only in speech, where they are identified as "allophones". In other words, the vowels do not exist, they only appear to exist because of pronunciation.

An allophone is a variation of the phoneme, and this variation can be inconsistent, varying from geographic location to geographic location, and forming a contributing factor to regional accents, it can even vary from person to person where it can assist in identifying an individual speaker.

This occurs in all languages.

(a phoneme is a unit of sound in a particular language; an allophone is a variation of a spoken phoneme)

My apologies for the pedantry, but my post #9 was the short version of a 20 minute lecture.

Many thanks for your explanation but I did not mean pronunciation. I told that an one written word may have different meanings which depend on what kind of vowel absents between consonants.

[David]

Take a look at the karud daggers and pesh-kabz daggers below, does anyone seriously think they are the same weapons and should all be described by the same name?
Well gentlemen, i have no horse in this race. These blades are well out of my collecting area, though i do find them both beautiful and exquisitely crafted. Admittedly i know very little about them, but i do have some observations based upon my own area of interest.
In the keris world we are constantly inundated with terms for everything from various parts of the blade and elements of the hilts and sheaths to precise dhapur (profile and feature shapes) and pamor patterns. I don't know if i have ever encountered a study so seemingly obsessed with the name game. These terms can not only vary from island to island, but sometimes even from village to village and certainly from era to era. We also know that over the centuries we can also find other names used to describe the entire keris that go well beyond the divergent spellings of that word itself (i.e. kris, creese, etc.). I won't get into them here. However, the vast majority of the keris collecting world seems to have decided upon "keris" (though some, especially in the West, hold on to he spelling as "kris") to describe this asymmetrical blade that seems to have an almost infinite amount of subtle variations.
To my untrained eye i see many of the same feature elements in what you call a pesh-kabz and a karud with the major difference being only a straight blade vs. a recurved one.
Estcrh asks "does anyone seriously think they are the same weapons and should all be described by the same name?"
All i can say is that a keris is a keris whether it is a lurus (straight) blade or a wavy (luk) blade. If the only thing that hold one back from referring to a straight pesh-kabz as such is the straightens of the blade i don't really find that to be much of a problem.
The keris examples i show below are the least of the variations one can find in keris blades from various parts of the area. Yet they are all called "keris".

[ariel]

Sorry, but I cannot comment on the feedback with any references right now: we are at a delightful little town in Westerm Michigan called South Haven ( pop. 4166) on the shore of Lake Michigan , with our newly-adopted dog Snoopy. She is a mini schnauzer, almost 7 years old, and came from a shelter. She is overwhelmed by new experiences and needs to be taken out every hour or two.. Will be back tomorrow evening, and I might have occasional opportunities to hit the books.

Meanwhile, thanks everybody for your feedbacks.

[estcrh]

Estcrh asks "does anyone seriously think they are the same weapons and should all be described by the same name?"
All i can say is that a keris is a keris whether it is a lurus (straight) blade or a wavy (luk) blade. If the only thing that hold one back from referring to a straight pesh-kabz as such is the straightens of the blade i don't really find that to be much of a problem.
David, the keris you show have straight blades not curved, now if a keris had a curved blade instead of straight (is there such a thing?) would it not have a specific name, probably so.

[estcrh]

In the keris world we are constantly inundated with terms for everything from various parts of the blade and elements of the hilts and sheaths to precise dhapur (profile and feature shapes) and pamor patterns. I don't know if i have ever encountered a study so seemingly obsessed with the name game. David, try Japanese swords, everything has a name and I mean everything!! And then there are the smiths and the schools etc etc.

[kronckew]

:) the vikings, like the japanese named individual swords of note. the tachi and katana are both curved swords, genus 'samurai swords' subclasses tachi and katana. simlar taxonomy for knives?

i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c.

arroz by any other name would small as sweet. ;)

'karud' may not have started off as a proper unique word, but it has gained a life of it's own. english especially is famous for loan words and made-up words, ambiguous words, etc.. unlike france, or quebec, where you may get fined for using the english word for an item that has a french equivalent in french conversation, we do not have that restriction here. i hope.

[Lee]

I think that we collectors of ethnographic artifacts have found it very convenient (and fitting) to adopt what may have been a generic term (i.e. sword, knife, dagger) in the language or dialect of the producing culture as a specific term for an artifact of that culture. On many occasions what was recorded and became accepted has been 'in error' and a brief visit to your dusty copy of Stone's Glossary... should prove that. So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.

[Mercenary]

So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.
But we need to know all the nuances, mentioned by D.Miloserdov and Ariel....

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent discussion, and as Lee has noted, many terms and long held 'chestnuts' concerning the spectrum of arms have been firmly in place or 'written in Stone' :). However, as with most aspects of history and all its ancillary studies, it is well to learn all we can on origins and development of not just the forms, but their descriptive terms' etymology. Stone himself knew the frailty of his chosen subject matter, and that his work would serve as the benchmark it has become, and encouraged research to continue,

The very nature of these aspects are often of course nuanced, subtle and many have clearly gone unnoticed or unattended at large, which is exactly why these perspectives by Ariel and Dmitry are so well placed.

[ariel]

OK, I am back. Snoopy passed the test with flying colors. She came home and immediately fell asleep. Good girl.

Again, thank you all for your feedback.

The goal of my little research was to trace the origin of the word Karud and to tell a cautionary tale how important it is to read primary sources with attention.

To my great relief and satisfaction nobody questioned the veracity of my analysis. This is already good:-)

All the dissenting opinions were centered around a different question: given that right now we all know that Karud is not a real word, but a mistranscription of Kard, should we still use it in our communications and publications? Several Forumites said that the word Karud is so deeply ingrained in our vocabulary and so convenient to use, that abandoning it will make communications difficult if not impossible.

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz ( with straight blade).

Such is the case with the Polish book "Persian arms and armour" ( Ed. by A.R. Chodynski): see ## 177,179-181, 182. In that book, L. Kobylinski states that some examples of Peshkabz had recurved blades, while other had straight blades (p.65).
"Oriental weapons" by J. Caravana ( #59)
" Splendeur des armes orientales" (#209)
" Arms of the Paladins" by O. Pinchot (#3-107)
"Catalogue de la collection d'armes anciennes" by C Buttin ( ##699, 700)
"Contribution a l'etude...." By P. Holstein, (#141)
"Islamic and Oriental Arms and Armor" by R. Hales ( ## 19-21,24,27,32, 33, 36,79,140,167)
" Mortal Beauty" ( published under the aegis of Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow) #91
" The arts of the Muslim Knight" by B. Mohamed #183
" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)

As we can see, it is quite easy to communicate without involving the word "Karud".
And, for those who want a short and precise definition that is in complete agreement with the local usage, why not use
" shotorkosh"? :-)

On a serious note, nobody can ban a certain word from conversational practice. How about a compromise: using "Karud" in unofficial discussions ( yielding to the ardent devotees of this word), but avoiding it in any serious academic publication
( accepting the fact that it has nothing to do with local usage and became popular only due to phonetic mishap by the Europeans) ?

Although Shotorkosh still sounds grand! :-)

[estcrh]

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz.

But they are not pesh-kabz, why didnt the makers of these daggers just create more pesh-kabz if they were making peshkabz???? Just because they are similar in some aspects does not make then the same and just because SOME authors made the mistake of thinking that the karud and pesh-kabz are the same why should we?

Why stop here, lets not call a "choora" a choora, or a "kyber knife" a kyber knife...the original makers of these weapons did not call them by these names.

Take the Indian tegha sword, similar to a tulwar but different enough to have its own name, the list goes on, I could show many such examples.

And while we are at it, since you brought up the "kard" dagger many times, just because the karud and the dagger we now call a "kard" both have only one cutting edge does not make them the same either, examples below.

I trust what my eyes see, not what some authors decides is right, they have been wrong before, on many occasions, same with museums, and auction houses etc. We now have online an abundance of images and can see for ourselves which weapons are basically the same and which are different enough to have a separate name.

Look at the examples of karud and kard daggers below...would anyone mistake them for being the same?

[estcrh]

" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)Ariel, karud daggers come from India, Afghanistan as well as Persia (I do not remember ever seeing an ottoman karud), what is the Indian name and what is the Afghan name, and why should we in the west be confined to what some native many years ago supposedly called a certain weapon if it now has a currently used and accepted name. On the other hand, if a particular weapons proved to be different enough to have an individual name and it ws not already named this would be a different matter entirely.

[ariel]

Eric,
You are missing the point again.
Kard, just like choora is just a " knife" in Persian and "Hindoostanee" respectively. Here Gilchrist was 100% correct.
Nobody with a minimal knowledge of weapons from that area would confuse kard with peshkabz ( or even karud, if you want it). Two immediate differences just jump out at you: peshkabz has a sudden narrowing of the blade next to the handle and also has a T-spine.
But all of them are just knives.
Perhaps, you should look at the references I cited and let all of us know why they are NOT peshkabz ( es?).

Overall, I take my hat off to you, if you think that all the abovementioned authors ( including Mohamed, Pinchot, Kobylinski, Hales, Buttin, Holstein etc.) were mistaken, and you alone are correct.


In one thing you are unquestionably correct: Persian peshkabz with recurved blade , Central Asian and Indian "Karud" ( you see how accomodating I am?) with straight blade and Afghani Mahsud choora all belong to the same family, with just ethnic variations.

As to Khyber knife, this is yet another example of the European domination of printed word in general and weapon literature in particular. Over here somebody mentioned long ago the work of a Latvian knife aficionado Denis Cherevichnik: he found an old Pashto-English dictionary in which this weapon was locally called " selawah". This is the origin of the pre-"Khyber knife" European moniker Salawar Yataghan: Selawah mutated to British transcription Salawar, and yataghan possibly was added because of a similarity of the recurved profile of some "khybers" to a more familiar Ottoman weapon.

Here is the reference ( took me some time to find it in old archives):

Raverty, H. G. (Henry George). A dictionary of the Pukhto, Pushto, or language of the Afghans: with remarks on the originality of the language, and its affinity to other oriental tongues. Second edition, with considerable additions. London: Williams and Norgate, 1867



________________________________________
سیلاوه selā-waʿh, s.f. (3rd) A large and long knife, a formidable weapon about two feet long or more, used by the Afg̠ẖāns. Pl. يْ ey
(Raverty, 1867.P. 1143)

[estcrh]

Here is a mention of a "karud" knife, 1825.


Hindoostanee Philology: Comprising a Dictionary, English and Hindoostanee; with a Grammatical Introduction, Volume 1, John Borthwick Gilchrist, Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen, 1825.

[estcrh]

Overall, I take my hat off to you, if you think that all the abovementioned authors were mistaken, and you are correct.I go with what my eyes tell me, how many times have I heard people say the "Stone was wrong". Just because a certain writer has some credibility does not always mean that they are right.

[estcrh]

(double post)

[estcrh]

The use of the term 'karud" goes way back, is it any wonder that people have accepted and use the term now, George Stone used in it 1934. That is over 70yrs I believe, and you suddenly want to eliminate the term because....can you explain again, I still cant quite figure out why we should stop using it.

A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: in All Countries and in All Times, by George Cameron Stone, 1934.

[estcrh]

Perhaps, you should look at the references I cited and let all of us know why they are NOT peshkabz ( es?).

I have already SHOWN why, the images I posted show a straight bladed karud dagger, a pesh-kabz is curved bladed, unless you really believe there is absolutely no difference and they are exactly the same dagger and that the makers of these daggers believed that they were making the same dagger, but then if that were true why bother to make a straight bladed dagger and a curved bladed dagger?

Not to long ago you were the one arguing that certain swords that appeared to be shashka were in fact not actually shashka but just happened to look like shashka.

Now you are arguing that two daggers that look completely different are actually the same...humm....
:shrug:

[ariel]

Perhaps, you should re-read my original post and look at Fig.2. Everything you just said in your multiple posts was already there.
I do not think there is any reason for me to continue arguing with you: you either not reading or not comprehending.
Please feel free to use any word you wish.
I am going to bed.
Best wishes and good night.

[estcrh]

Here is a reference to "karud", 1843



Cabool: A Personal Narrative of a Journey To, and Residence in that City, in the Years 1836, 7, and 8, Sir Alexander Burnes J. Murray, 1843

[estcrh]

Perhaps, you should re-read my original post and look at Fig.2. Everything you just said in your multiple posts was already there.
I do not think there is any reason for me to continue arguing with you: you either not reading or not comprehending.
Please feel free to use any word you wish.
I am going to bed.
Best wishes and good night.Ok, run off, but as for your post #2, it is blurry and you did not say were it can from or the date. Sorry you are unable to handle any type of disagreement with your theory but that is what people do on forums, disagree, argue and put their best research forward for others to judge.

I was just giving any interested people some visual proof that the word karud has fairly widely used for a long period of time. You are the one who out of the blue suddenly decided that we should completely stop using the word.

[estcrh]

Mughal weapons in the Bābur-nāmā, Gayatri Nath Pant
Agam Kala Prakashan, 1989

[A. G. Maisey]

I do believe that it has now been established that the romanised spellings "kard", and "karud" both represent the same object name when that name is written in the original script.

In fact, in language of origin, both these spellings refer to the same object.

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?

My field is not kards, karuds, khards or anything similar, but those of us who play with keris have exactly this same situation, there are innumerable ways of spelling "keris":- kris, cris, creese, are the most common, then there are the terms used in keris bearing cultures, words which bear no visible relationship to "keris".

But when Players with Keris talk amongst themselves, it doesn't seem to matter what word is used to refer to the object, we still understand one another.

In this Forum, and nowhere else to my knowledge, an artificial distinction has been drawn between the spelling "keris" and "kris". Keris refers to the dagger form, "kris" refers to the sword form, mostly from the Southern Philippines. Both these forms are by any academic definition keris --- or if we prefer "kris" --- but for purposes of discussion here we have this artificial, but useful, distinction, useful, because it has been decided that the sword version really belongs in the Forum that discusses swords. Let's call it an administrative decision.

When we look at the English language, we find one major spelling variation, that is between American English and British English, some words have two, or sometimes more, different spellings, but they are still the same word and still carry the same broad meaning, although, admittedly, meanings can vary according to specific societal usage, especially implied meanings.

There is a great deal of flexibility in the way language is used. Does it really matter if I spell a word using the UK spelling, and somebody else spells it using the American spelling?

It is general practice in English, and in many other languages, that where there are variations within a category of object, that variation is identified by use of an adjective. Kards and karuds are the same object but can possess a variation, thus in accord with general usage of the English language we would normally add an adjective to identify this variation.

Why is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.

[estcrh]

Here is what Ariel had to say on the subject of karud, 2013

[estcrh]

Can anybody explain to me why it is that both spellings cannot be accepted, and used equally?........................................Wh y is it that both spellings of this word cannot be used equally and the adjective added if that is thought to be necessary?

I simply cannot see the problem here.Because now the two words describe completely different daggers, did you see the comparison photos I posted showing the difference between the karud dagger and the kard dagger, do you really think that are the same??

Here are two google searches, on for kard and one for karud, see for yourself.

Kard https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=kard+dagger&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT0aT_ierVAhVCbbwKHaG8C4IQ_AUICigB&biw=1278&bih=678

Karud https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=karud+daggers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8-f6HiurVAhXFUrwKHXRuBQYQ_AUICigB&biw=1278&bih=678

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.

However, I must admit, my weapons study is based in anthropology, sociology and language study, I can no longer regard myself as a true collector of weapons, rather I collect information on one particular type of weapon.

So when I see your "kard", or your "karud" I do not ask what collectors in New York, London or Patagonia call this dagger, I ask what the people who own the culture that generated this weapon call it.

It appears that these people had only one name for both varieties of the dagger.

This brings us back to common English usage. The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object, and starting from the same root. As a general rule, the way the English language--- and many other languages --- handles this matter, when a variation in the object occurs, is to use a descriptor, an adjective, to differentiate one from the other.

So my question then is whether this is an English Language Forum, or whether we have our own jargon?

Perhaps we really do have our own jargon, as demonstrated by previous reference to the "kris/keris" matter. Now that was handled by the taking of an administrative decision. Possibly if it can be demonstrated that the bulk of people who are members of this Forum want two different words to describe two varieties of the same dagger, then a punitive system could be put in place to ensure that the correct jargon was used at all times.

Or maybe the matter is of such vital importance that a couple of new sub-forums could be set up, one for discussion of kards, one for discussion of karuds.

But on second thought, maybe that would not be such a good idea, because then all those troublesome Keris People might want all manner of sub-forums to discuss the vast variety to be found in keris forms.Straight blades in one forum, 3 wave blades in another, 5 wave blades in another, a separate forum for keris sajen, another for keris budo. The possibilities are endless.

A workable alternative for the kards and karuds would be to simply stick with the practices that govern common English usage.

Language is a tool that is used to vocalise thought.

Script is a tool that is used to present the vocalisation of thought in a graphic form.

Where two objects are thought of in the same way by the culture that owns those objects, the transliteration of the name shared by those objects should ideally remain true to the graphic representation of the original thought.

Where transliteration of one graphic representation to a different graphic representation results in more than one graphic representation of the original script, then it can be recognised that those additional graphic representations are equally true to the original for the new users of that word.

Thus, kard = karud, and if there is a variation in form of the object that is the owner of the name, it should be identified by use of an adjective together with the noun.

I apologise for the long winded comment. I find this subject fascinating, and it appears that for English Language professionals it is no less fascinating. What I have given above is a precis of a couple of hours discussion with an English Language academic

[Roland_M]

Kard/Karud is a Persian term and simply means "knife".

It is probably the same like with Indonesian weapons, "piso gading" also simply means "knife ivory". "Piso gading" seems to be a modern term. Maybe Kard/karud is also not the original designation.


Roland

[ariel]

Alan,

The point is that there are no two different spellings of Kard and Karud. In Persian it is spelled Kard and nothing else. As you have previously noted, the soft rolling of "r" gives an aural impression of yet another vowel after it ( "u" for Gilchrist and Moser, "e" for Holstein): an epenthesis. Karud is a word that did not exist in written form: it is just a result of a phonetical mishap.

That was the salient point of my inquiry into the origin of the word Karud in the contemporary Western literature, no more.

I find it amusing that there still are attempts to use a phonetical error to officially create a separate class of realia. Some phonetical peculiarities acquire a life of their own: in Arabic there is no phoneme "p"; thus the language of Pars became Farsi and Greco-Roman Neapolis became Nablus. Still, they refer to the same things.

As to the usage of Karud in unofficial discussions, I have no beef with it.

My point referred to "professional literature", and I clearly indicated it in the last sentence of my original post.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ariel, correct, as I wrote in my previous post:-

"--- The original word has generated two spellings for the same word and object---"

The people who owned the object and its name clearly thought of this object as the same thing, whether it had a straight blade or a waved blade, but through the process of transliteration that one word became two words when it passed into other languages and other script.

We're on the same page here, perhaps I was insufficiently clear in what I wrote.

As I understand it, for some collectors this "karud" word has become an addition to their lexicon of weapon names. In other words it has entered collector jargon. We know it is not legit. We know it is a construct, but if it helps some people express themselves clearly and save all that effort of using an adjective, it probably doesn't matter. The academics will continue to try their best to be precise, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, so the serious literature will remain correct, and the friendly social chatter can use whatever words everybody agrees to.

I'm not into kards, nor karuds, but if I was, I think I'd probably spell the word "khard", that seems to me to have a much more regal touch to it than the plebian old "kard". A little bit of aspiration never did do anything but put a slightly gilded edge to a word.

[David]

Actually ESTCRH, I don't see two completely different objects when I look at the two daggers that share the same name, I see two daggers that are the same, one of which has a blade variation.
Alan, i believe this is correct when we are looking at the differences between what Estcrh insists should be called "karud" and the "pesh-kabz", however, there is quite a substantial difference in the blade forms between what collectors generally consider to be a "kard" and a "karud" as Estcrh clearly illustrates in his post #36. I don't believe anyone would confuse one of these knives with the other and they do probably need distinctly different names to avoid confusion in discussion. However, when we are looking at the "karud" (as recognized by Estcrh and others) and the pesh-kabz, to my eye we are indeed looking at a variation on the same blade design, one straight and one recurved. I see no trouble in calling a "karud" in this case a "straight pesh-kabz". But what people generally refer to as a "kard" could never be seen as a straight pesh-kabz. it is a completely different blade form.

[David]

David, the keris you show have straight blades not curved, now if a keris had a curved blade instead of straight (is there such a thing?) would it not have a specific name, probably so.
Estcrh, you seriously see the wavy bladed keris on the left side of my post #27 as "straight blades"? You cannot see how what i posted applies to this topic of discussion? I am afraid that you have left me confused in this matter. :confused:

[David]

David, try Japanese swords, everything has a name and I mean everything!! And then there are the smiths and the schools etc etc.
LOL! There are probably at least twice as many named parts to a keris blade as there is for a katana. That doesn't even begin to get into the variant dhapurs (blade profiles) and pamor patterns. And then the concepts of tangguh that categorize blades by era geography. Believe me the Japanese sword has nothing on keris when it comes to names and categories. Please, don't get me started. ;)

[ariel]

David,
You are correct: we can compose an endless list of Oriental weapons with the same name and different blades or handles ( Ottoman yataghan is just one example), or with different names and identical construction ( see Van Zonneveld's book of Indonesian weapons).

Most, if not all of it, is due to ethnic or even village traditions.

Early Oriental societies had no regulation patterns. The same blade with different handles could have been a Peshkabz with straight blade ( once again, an example of my magnanimity: a Karud) or an Afridi Choora. Asking why did the knifemakers manufacture Peshkabz with straight blade instead of a recurved one is pointless, akin to asking why some Kris are wavy and some are straight or why Zeibek yataghans have T-like pommel instead of an eared one and integral bolster instead of flimsy hollow brass one.

[fernando]

... i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c...
As an empirical i am fond of neologisms but, when Fernando Fulgosio decided to put a name to this thing in 1872, he was hardly building one. Remember there was no record of how this sword was called by its ancestor users, so he got hold of some latin (Roman) script quoting this sword they greatly appreciated, ensis falcâtus and, aware of the curved (sickle) attribution, off he went. Only in the current case he made it simple, only opting for connoting the form of the blade and declining the substantive 'sword', after ensis.
Certainly more complicated is when authors have to refer, in their own (english) phonetic manner, to swords named in all languages, attending to the sound pronounced by their nationals; and eventually omitting the term ethimology, something which would give the reader a more accurate perception. I see how Portuguese established contact with weapons (and all) they encountered during their XVI century travels and chroniclers had to put them in writing; the deal was to turn into portuguese as per the sound they heard. Then once it is written, is perpetuated.
You don't see many (any) weapons in Stone with a Portuguese name; he entitles his work as 'in all countries in all times' but i suspect he didn't contemplate this little corner. The only time so far i found a familiar term (page 3) is result of a gaffe; he joins the term Adaga with Adarga, whereas the first is a dagger and the second is a shield... terms with completely different origins.

... arroz by any other name would small as sweet. ;)...
You mean arroz doce, sweet rice; your portuguese is improving :cool:.

[Oliver Pinchot]

Interesting topic, Ariel. I applaud and support your work here.
And you are correct, I didn't use that term in Arms of the Paladins because it did not exist as a distinct word in its period of use. Like a number of other inaccurate names applied to weapons, it was recorded by early European and American students of arms and armor who were seeking to establish a viable taxonomy, as they heard it in situ.

Fernando and Alan, please forgive me for reiterating what you have already stated with modesty, simplicity, and complete accuracy in this thread... Karud is nothing more than the precise transliteration into Latin letters of the way the Persian word kard (which just means "knife") was and is pronounced in Persian and Dari: with a distinct alveolar trill. Another example would be the word for “leather,” charm, which comes out sounding like charrr-um.)

The problem lies, not with Persian, but with the pronunciation of the letter R in American and British English, French and German; it is virtually impossible to transliterate even an approximately similar sound in these languages without inserting a U between the R and D, simply because none of them roll the R in common speech. Italian, Spanish, Russian (and many others,) however, would likely not have the same problem. Conversely, I could not for a moment imagine how an Iranian scholar would go about transliterating the American pronunciation of the word squirrel into Persian.

[estcrh]

So when I see your "kard", or your "karud" I do not ask what collectors in New York, London or Patagonia call this dagger, I ask what the people who own the culture that generated this weapon call it.

It appears that these people had only one name for both varieties of the dagger.

But this discussion is ALL about what WESTERN collectors, dealers etc call these weapons due to the fact that Ariel is saying that the terms now being use should not be used.

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote, and since you admit you have no interest in these weapons I do not understand your point. For example, I have absolutely no interest in keris and would not even try to tell the people interested in these weapons what to call the different types.

I am inclined to believe tht this is a discussion that has taken place in Russian forums and is now being played out on this forum for some unknown reason.

[A. G. Maisey]

ESTCRH I do understand that it can be difficult to follow everything that is written in a posted comment, and I also understand that the way in which I choose to write my comments can be quite difficult for some people to follow.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion I may have caused you.

To clarify:- please be aware that I have absolutely no intention of attempting to tell anybody with an interest in kards or karuds or anything else for that matter, what they should call these things. In my post #54 you will see that I actually endorse the current situation, where the word "karud" has achieved recognition as collector jargon.

I believe that far from saying that the word "karud" should not be used, Ariel has actually suggested that since it has become a part of collector jargon he can see no reason why it should not continue thus, however, in serious publications that try take account of the cultural context, a slightly more accurate approach that considers word origin should be employed.

In this current discussion, my interest is purely in the way in which language is used.

Ariel's post that opened the discussion was centered on a matter that has concerned me for most of my life, and that is the way in which language develops and is used.

As I also have a + 60 year involvement with edged weaponry, and specifically with the keris, that interest in language has not surprisingly extended into the use of language, both spoken and written, in the field of edged weaponry.

In respect of the two words "kard", and "karud", it is very clear that in the culture of origin only one word was used to refer to both styles of this dagger, however, through a variation in transliteration, when that single word entered other languages, and the original script was Romanised, that single word became two different words.

It appears that one of those two words has now entered the jargon of one group of people:- collectors who are based outside the culture of origin of the dagger in question.

I do understand that many collectors of many different types of things, including weaponry, have no interest in, nor understanding of, the cultures of origin of the things they collect, these collectors focus on the physical object they collect and create their own terms of reference. I have no problem with this: it is what these people do, and it is no business of mine how they pursue their interest.

But other collectors take a different approach to their collecting:- they attempt to obtain a deeper understanding of the thing that they choose to collect and this very often leads to a study of the culture, society, history, language, technology and so forth of the thing that they collect.

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.

[estcrh]

So we have the simple collector who focuses on the object of collection, and we have the enquiring collector who extends his focus into the background of the object that he collects.

Neither approach is correct nor incorrect, it simply reflects the nature of the collector.Actually most of the collectors I know and dealers as well are quite interested in the historical accuracy of descriptions but they know enough to separate the historical description that was used by the original owners / users...(who were not collectors) from the currently used and accepted description of weapons types that are different enough to be called by a distinct name.

I can name many such examples and since the pesh-kabz and the karud are very idenifiable by their differences SERIOUS collectors decided (way in the past) to give these distinct types names...a very simple way to categorize weapons and armor, this is what western collectors do as opposed to the people who originally owned and used these items. This does not make the people who use this method less scholarly, if fact in my mind it makes these people even more knowledgable since they have to ability to travel both worlds instead of being stuck in one or the other.

Having a "deeper understanding" does not mean you have to ignore the currently used terms just because some villager in the past, who did not collect weapons at all but simply owned and used them, and called all daggers, swords etc by the same name.

Ariel suggests they we ignore history and pretend it does not exist by stating that it is somehow unprofessional to mention the word "karud" in any so called scholarly publications, I think the exact opposite, I think it is unprofessional not to mention the decades old currently used descriptions....trying to erase the past is not very scholarly.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes ESTCRH, we all have our own opinions, and of course we are permitted to express those opinions, most people in this Forum seem to have a tendency to respect the opinions of others, just as I respect your opinions and I also respect Ariel's opinions.

However, my respect does not extend to blind agreement with any opinion.

[Battara]

Folks the point of debate and sharing of knowledge is to express and then reflect on what the other has said.

Let us all keep our emotional reactions out of this please. This is not pointed at any one person, but everyone.

[RobertGuy]

Just to lighten things up: :)

What is needed is for everybody to use the agreed standard nomenclature for these blades.
The Peshkabz should always be referred to by its proper designation, a Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 10, the Kard must be identified as the Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 11 and the Karud correctly identified as the Fritz Lieberson type 14 model 11A ( the model 11B designation should be avoided unless there is an R in the month)

Looks like a duck
Walks like a duck
Quacks like a duck

ITS A DUCK :)

[mariusgmioc]

Very interesting discussion but I must stress that in Persian the word "KARD/KARUD" simply means knife... OF ANY TYPE.

The same way the word "SHAMSHIR" means sword... of any type.

Or the same way the word "KILIJ" in Turkish means sword ... of any type.

Or the same way the word "BICHAK" in Turkish means knife... of any type.

Yet, it were the European researchers/collectors/scholars who associated all these generic local names to very specific types of weapons.

Whether this happened because of a missunderstanding of the local language or because of a deliberate decission is relevant mainly for the scholar and scientific accuracy. For us, as collectors, is more important to have clear and precise terms to accurately describe each type of weapon.

Since there is NO ethnographically and linguistically correct term to describe precisely the straight-bladed Pesh-kabz, I believe we are perfectly justified to use the term "KARUD" to describe it, even if it may be ethnographically and linguistically incorrect.

[Oriental-Arms]

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

[Kubur]

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....
:confused:

[Jim McDougall]

Robert Guy I like your style! great humor is a relief in these situations where frustration needs a relief valve.

Actually, I too am always fascinated by language and etymology, but I am far from a linguist, and do not speak any language but English. From this standpoint, I include these angles in my often deep research historically into these weapons and their forms.
While I do not agree that the term 'karud' be lifted from our 'jargon' (well put Alan!) I do highly applaud the research work and articles by both Ariel and Dmitry.
In all of this there should not be conflict or debate, but constructive examining of all of this research to comprehensively establish the data to emplace in the historical footnotes concerning these weapons.

I think of so many examples of these kinds of situations in ethnographic forms where terms have been often applied arbitrarily in western attempts to classify and categorize them. The koummya; janwii; khanjhar; janbiyya; of course 'katar'; and many, many others beyond the karud, pesh kabz, kard, bichaq group.
Virtually all of these have extenuating circumstances in their names linguistically and etymologically, but these are part of the fascination and intrigue of ethnographic arms as far as I can see.

It would be completely misplaced and counterproductive to remove any of these terms from our glossaries, as they are the semantic fiber of our countless years of research on them. To revise and update our future literature to include these valuable findings and new evidence on etymology adds profoundly to the history of these weapons, and that should be our focus.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jim, spot on.

Maybe its time for a 21st century Stone to appear.

[ariel]

If one would want it to be not only a "picture" book for a quick attribution, but a more academic one, with references, controversies, ethnic and time variations, that will require at least doubling the size of Stone's Glossary and several years of dedicated effort by a multi-member team of narrow-field specialists.

A Herculean task....

[A. G. Maisey]

Agreed Ariel.

Nothing of value comes easy.

[estcrh]

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.I would name this one "MINE"!!! A beauty, nicely made, an excellent example of a gigantic karud...certainly not a kard or pesh-kabz. There are from time to time certain weapons that just bend the rules a bit, not quite one thing or another, not everything is a perfect fit. A kyber-karud..humm

[estcrh]

If one would want it to be not only a "picture" book for a quick attribution, but a more academic one, with references, controversies, ethnic and time variations, that will require at least doubling the size of Stone's Glossary and several years of dedicated effort by a multi-member team of narrow-field specialists.

A Herculean task....Ariel, that would be the only way to have a complete history of an item, it is a Herculean task, which is why I am amazed that anyone attempts it, even on a small scale. Take for instance Trevor Absolon, author of several books on Japanese armor. He has been working on a new book, basically The History of Japanese Armor...years of painstaking research, collecting obscure references, images etc. Finally he is in the process getting ready to publish...but he has to keep putting the date back due to some new information suddenly being available, its hard to put the finishing touches on something that will be discussed and argued with for the rest of your life.

[estcrh]

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....
:confused:I think khyber-karud is a good description, it is nothing like what collectors call a "kard".

[estcrh]

Very interesting discussion but I must stress that in Persian the word "KARD/KARUD" simply means knife... OF ANY TYPE.

The same way the word "SHAMSHIR" means sword... of any type.

Or the same way the word "KILIJ" in Turkish means sword ... of any type.

Or the same way the word "BICHAK" in Turkish means knife... of any type.

Yet, it were the European researchers/collectors/scholars who associated all these generic local names to very specific types of weapons.

Whether this happened because of a missunderstanding of the local language or because of a deliberate decission is relevant mainly for the scholar and scientific accuracy. For us, as collectors, is more important to have clear and precise terms to accurately describe each type of weapon.

Since there is NO ethnographically and linguistically correct term to describe precisely the straight-bladed Pesh-kabz, I believe we are perfectly justified to use the term "KARUD" to describe it, even if it may be ethnographically and linguistically incorrect.I think this is a good, precise description of the discussion here. I would think that using an accepted and known name for this type of dagger, whether you think it is a variation of the pesh-kabz or a similar but completely separate type is a good thing, people who accept and use "karud" are on the same page when discussing these weapons. As for a any publications, why not explain the controversy about the name, then people will have a well rounded knowledge of the items history.

[ariel]

Eric,

It seems to me that finally you have actually read my posts. This is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning.

Good job.

[Ian]

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

[A.alnakkas]

Who cares what some person in a village called it other than as a historical footnote

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects.

As collectors, it is important to see that we are preservers of human heritage (that of people in some villages too!) and as such, must strive to preserve it in the way it was, not as typos and mishearing. That said, as someone currently engaging in a research, the effort of western collectors and researchers is most valuable, but so does the remaining heritage of some person living in a village somewhere. The idea that somehow the locals have forgotten their heritage and the truth is only found in old oriental works is quite misleading and sadly too prevalent amongst collectors.

What Ariel did is quite helpful, it helps dispel a myth. A small step and a highly appreciated one.

[fernando]

... I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary....
Absolutely, Ian.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated...
And even various spellings among different groups , as one may find in his own people ... and dictionary.

... Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided...
What an excelent approach; not only for this specific case but for all of similar nature.

...What's in a name?...
Or how you decide to deal with it :shrug:.

[fernando]

I see where you are coming from, Eric and respect that. It is good to have the ability to categorise what often becomes vast collections of items that often have more similarities than differences. The kard being an example of such items. But here is what can be considered as the underlying difference between a collector genuinely interested in the history of said items and a hoarder with a knack for categorising: the history and the most accurate ethnography of objects...
Hi A. alnakas,
I know your words have a benign intention but, for a moment, they could look like a simplistic manner to reduce the quality range of collecting people to two categories; the lowest being the hoarder class. But don't pay any notice; it could be my misperception :o ;)

[Jim McDougall]

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.



Absolutely perfectly reasoned and eloquently written Ian, and well describing what most of us are trying to establish, the parameters that surround properly describing ethnographic and historical arms and armor forms.

As has been noted, the monumental work by George Cameron Stone in 1934 has stood ever since as the cornerstone (with its heft almost literally) in the world of arms study for both scholars and collectors. I think it has long been wished that an updated version could be accomplished, and there have been numbers of attempts in degree. Even Herculean falls short of illustrating the huge challenge in achieving such a task.

As Eric has noted, the problem in researching, compiling and writing a book even on a single often limited field or form is difficult as there are constantly new examples, material and more accurate perspectives arising. This is because of, thankfully, our cadre of enthusiasts in the study of arms and armor, constantly probing, investigating, evaluating, discovering...and this is part of the fiber of the passion of collectors in our chosen fields.

I think Lofty has well expressed the circumstances involved in the study and the struggle to more accurately describe and understand the many conflicts and nuances which arise in the progression of research.
There is indeed a considerable spectrum in the character of collectors, who well augment the necessary examples and evidence required by scholars who are deeply involved in such research. I think Fernando has astutely observed (coincidentally in the theme of this discussion) the misfortune of a word or term inadvertently placed in an otherwise beautifully explained text.

I think the term 'hoarder' is probably a bit strong, however it does apply to the character in some cases of some who strive to collect impressively, focusing less on the history, details and background of items they amass. What they seek is an impressive and concisely worded description which will be resounding in the volume of examples proudly exhibited in carefully organized categorization.
While this type of collector is quite different than most, it should be recognized that they are characteristically with somewhat different ajenda and goals than others in many ways.
To our benefit, these individuals by sheer volume often turn up key examples which provide valuable evidence as they are proudly displayed.

To be fair, a 'hoarder' is one who amasses things in huge volume but usually secretively and without specific purpose. A collector who amasses often huge volumes of arms and does not exhibit specific interest in their history in depth, is simply a collector, rather than a historian.

Conversely, I personally do not collect any longer, and am a historian, who deeply appreciates the opportunities to view, study and discuss the amazing spectrum of arms here, and shared by those who DO collect, regardless of WHY.

[fernando]

A gentle approach to the hoarder term, both with and without a connotation tone; gentle as you usually are, Jim. But allow me to add a humble note to the collector categorization, as an apendix to the implicit subject.
Collectors, to be collectors, do not have to follow any specific tendency. There are those who enjoy learning how the weapon was used, in what context, their origin, what would be their date, that is, the quantity of juice they chose to squeeze out of available data, easily or intensively (re)searched, depending on each one's disposition; however not necessarily interested, as an allien example, in what is the composition of metal each weapon is composed with, to the extent of studying the temperature at which its material melts ... if i make myself understood. Nonetheless collectors still they are. Let us make sure that collectors out there who are not interested in ultimate academic details are not as vulgar as hoarders; they simply might not take it so flattery ;).

[Ian]

Fernando, I agree. Those who collect large numbers of weapons are not to be condemned for their passion and resources. I have no problem with people who collect in such a way, as long as they are not driving up the prices to where I cannot afford good quality items any more. :(

Eventually large collections are broken up, and that benefits us too. As long as the items have been well preserved, large old collections become a valuable source for the rest of us.

[fernando]

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes :rolleyes:. In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders ;) :eek: .

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Fernando for clarifying and well explaining what I had been trying to say but apparently missed the mark. I was hoping to explain that 'hoarder' was not a good term to use for collectors who do not necessarily share scholastic or academic endeavors toward them. I thought that by describing their perspective as though often unique and apart from others who seek detailed learning from the weapons, they are still syncretically important in our community as they often acquire important examples amidst their volume which we students can learn from.

As Ian has pointed out, the only concern is the driving up of prices by unabashed competition whose only purpose might be acquisition to satisfy an empty hole in the grouping with a key example which has inherent qualities or evidence in a scholastic matter. To deny recognizing that such circumstances or individuals exist whether with'collectors', 'dealers', investors or opportunists would be naive.

As I explained, we all have different approaches to collecting or studying, and for me personally, I have never understood metallurgy and scientific analysis on weapons, nor have I interest in martial aspects. Despite not being interested in these aspects, I very much admire those who excel in these areas and try (key word) to follow their entries.

The good thing is that here we have deviated a little from linguistics into philosophy here!!! :) Who says that the study of arms (hoplology for the wordsmiths) does not fit into the academic curriculum in humanities!!!??
As always, I learn a lot here and hope others do as well.

[Royston]

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes :rolleyes:. In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders ;) :eek: .

A few years ago I was allowed into the basement of a museum with the curator. I could not believe the amount of items that were stored there. Items which any collector would be dribbling over. There was no room to display these things and they could not be sold or even swapped as almost all of them had been gifted and had to remain the property of the museum. This was a small county museum in England, god knows what is hidden away in the large museums of the world, never to see the light of day.

Roy

[ariel]

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

[A.alnakkas]

The comments with regards to my mention of hoarders are highly appreciated and I accept that it can come out as quite distasteful, but only if one wish it to be so. No one is meant in particular in that comment but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line? There couldn't be a better separation of those two other than proper scholarly attitude towards the subject. In the end, knowing is equally as fun as owning.

[fernando]

Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit.

When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system.

And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive :cool:.

[mariusgmioc]

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

Hello Ariel,

My guess is that most of the collectors are somwhere inbetween. Well... at least I hope I am... :)

As with regards to your statement about using "European-invented monikers" because of our ignorance... I beg to differ.

While in some cases, it might be the truth, in some other it may be very far from it.

Take ifor example the KARUD. Is this an European-invented moniker?! I don't think so since even you in your original posting demonstrated that in fact it is a phonetical transliteration of the word KARD, which in turn is exactly how the natives used to call this type of knife (as Dmitry probably demonstrated in his paper).

Moreover, since the locals didn't have any specific name for this very specific blade, and they simply called it Kard (using "correct" transliteration)/Karud (using phonetic transliteration)/knife, I don't see how it can be disrespectful to them using exactly their name for their weapon. And in order to distinguish it from another one of their weapons, we use the phonetic transliterated term "Karud" for it as opposed to the literary transliterated term "Kard" for the other type of weapon.

This way, not only that we acknowledge and use the names given by the original makers/users of these knives, but we succeed in distinguishing between the two distinct variations of knife, where the original makers/users of the knives didn't distinguish (probably because they didn't feel the need to distinguish).

Last but not least, I beg to differ with the very idea of the title of this thread:

"Karud, the weapon that did not exist."

Not only that the "KARUD" exists and existed, but it was also CALLED exactly like this by its original makers/owners, exactly the same way the "KARD" exists and was WRITTEN like this by its original makers/owners!

Your whole argumet in the original posting is not about whether the "KARUD" existed or not, but about what is the "correct" way to transliterate a word: using the literal transliteration or the phonetic transliteration?!

You could rewrite your initial posting replacing "Karud" with "Kard" and attempting to make the point that the term "kard" does not exist and is merely a wrong ad-literam transliteration of the word "karud" as it is heard by our ears.

At least that's how I see things...

[fernando]

... but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line?
A question of personal perspective, perhaps. Although semanthics may not oblige, in my whereabouts we don't take the risk of such confusion, as we make a practical safe distinction between the two. We call collector (colector) any person or device that joins things in general, taxes, pipes, you name it, and we call 'collectionner' (coleccionador) a person or entity that puts up collections of selective things for appreciation and study; resulting that we are not general stuff collectors but antique arms collectionners. No line of any thickness between both ... but an empty space.
On the other hand one can't help to think of the hoarder term without a pejorative connotation; something like (quoting a crude english speaking source, font sizes included):

Hoarder:
(Adj) A word that describes anyone that feels the need to find, collect, keep, pack ANY and EVERYTHING because they do not know how to throw things away. A nicely put word than Pack Rat.

[Bob A]

The difficulty in actually ascertaining the vocabulary, context and usage of "villagers" renders most discussion more or less moot, in the absence of records or actual persons who embody the reality of a past time.

Linguistic research is limited to either written records by early Europeans, who may or may not have actually encountered contemporary examples of then-current usage, or scouring "native" records, with attendant problems of transliteration and focus - those who had the skill and opportunity to write of the subject were likely viewing it from a socio-cultural position far from that of the originators of the objects in question.

Ultimately a problem may arise when the usage of scholars branches away from that used in commerce and informal collection.

I fully embrace the search for truth, while reaining aware that it may only be approached asymptotically. The past is perforce a closed book, which we may approach cautiously and carefully, or embrace with commercial vigor, with all the inaccuracy and hype that entails.

[Jim McDougall]

A few points,
ON THE TITLE OF THE THREAD:
The title of the thread is perhaps misaligned. Rather then 'karud' the knife that did not exist.........better .
"Karud, the term misapplied to variation of pesh kabz through phonetic misinterpretation by Europeans thus becoming a vernacular word used by collectors for this particular form" :) The form DOES exist, its the term which is in question. .....what to call it.

ON THE TERM HOARDER:
The pejorative term 'hoarder' is entirely inappropriate to describe a collector, as they are typically systematic in their acquisition of the items they collect regardless of what forces drive their selections.

ON THE NATURE OF COLLECTORS:
Factors such as aesthetics, variations and forms, developmental sequences and many other individually favored features or reasons drive collectors. Hoarding is a resultant circumstance of either unconscious or unreasoned acquisition of things in volume, continued perpetually without relief or organization and often symptomatic of possible psychological issues.

I think the differences between collecting and hoarding, and the choice of use of these terms is fairly obvious.

ON THE APPLICATION OF TERMS IN CLASSIFICATION:
As we have seen through so many years of discussions here, there are so many instances of words in various cultures and languages which apply to 'edged weapons' rather indiscriminately. The analogies are many, but in so many cases, the terms for 'sword' for example often refer to 'any' sword regardless of particulars. In India, tulwar could mean the Indo-Persian we all know so well all the way to a British cavalry sabre.

The entire thesis here has to do with but one instance of a simple term for knife, kard, being misheard phonetically by non speakers of the language and misapplied to what is basically a straight bladed pesh kabz. The term kard is broadly applied, much in the same manner the term tulwar is.

Yet to us, as collectors or scholars in MANY if not MOST cases think of tulwar as the familiar disc hilt in what the west has labeled 'Indo-Persian' form.
While this appellation has existed since the 19th century (earlier perhaps in degree), the world of arms scholarship and collectors has somehow survived without dramatic reaction to the clear transcultural use of the term specific to that single form.

A similar schism as specious in nature has existed in not just ethnographic terminology on swords, but in European as well. When is a sword no longer a sword? when does a dagger become a dirk?
If a broadsword means double edged, and a single edged a backsword, why was the term broadsword used indiscriminately for both in the 18th c.

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?

Then the real beauty! Is a sword termed by the form of its blade?or like sosun patta, then classified further as Hindu or Muslim by the hilt form.
Yet swords are typically classified by hilt style, as many claim that since blades were widely traded, remounted etc. the character of the hilt is the determinate factor.
But as desperately as we have tried to regionalize the 'tulwar' hilts in India, we find that these forms were widely distributed through export from areas of production such as Rajasthan, not to mention the profound diffusion through conquest ethnically, colonially and constant flux with India's vast diversities bearing dramatic conflicts.

It seems the futility of trying to change or resolve the countless misnomers and conflicts in terminology which has become firmly emplaced in use, at this point should be powerfully apparent.

When we saw that the term 'katar' was misapplied inadvertently to the distinct dagger known linguistically in the regions of its use as 'jamadhar' (Pant, 1980) there was no strong reaction nor even the slightest effort to change the term. However, while use of the term katar remained in place to describe these daggers in common parlance, many responsible writers and scholars will FOOTNOTE the proper term originally used in India.

So it should be with KARUD, but it is to the benefit of all to be aware of the proper etymology of the term, so this valuable information is well worthy of footnote, but does not warrant an entire reapplication of classification.

ON OUR DISCUSSION HERE:
I think the most important thing we see in this remarkably dynamic discussion (or debate at points) is the impressive levels of knowledge and linguistic skills and reasoning displayed by all involved and participating here.
As always, I learn a great deal from these discussions, and wanted to say so, and thank everyone for their patience in carrying these out so constructively.

[fernando]

No need to thank, Jim. Patience is everyone's middle name ... and is provided on a Pro Bono basis ;) :cool: .

[kronckew]

...

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?
...

mine, like others i've seen, has a very slight yataghan-like recurve to the t-spine, if not the edge. they are made much like the karud knives, a.k.a. straight peshes, hence it's a knife, much like a german langemesser or grossemesser was a big knife, not a sword - because only officers and nobles could have swords, and only sword smiths could make swords for them, peasants had to make do with big knives made like knives by the lowly knife smiths. sumptuary laws, guilds, caste systems in action.

so, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows....

[ariel]

Jim,
Some of your questions seem to have answers. Mostly , it is a matter of ethnic origin.
Dirk ( or dork, or durk) is considered to relate to Germanic word Dolch, whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga.

Different sosun patas were all "lily leaves", i.e. sharing similar blades, not handles. The Deccani form is a Sailaba; quite likely that swords from the same group but from different localities also had specific local names, but we might have forgotten them.

Salavar ( in "Salavar yataghan") is clearly an English transcription of Selaava ( see earlier in this discussion) and "yataghan" was just added by the Brits from a very familiar to them Ottoman short sword with recurved blade ( see post by Kronkew). And BTW, are Selaava and Sailaba related?

In linguistics ethnicity is destiny: Bichwa is Baku or Vinchu, khandjar is Chhurri or Chaku in different regions (examples taken from Elgood's glossary).


And I am not talking already about Indonesian islands:-)

[fernando]

...whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga...
Maybe not so linear, if i may, Ariel.
Listen to what scholars think about this term:

- Some dictionaries say that the word "adaga" originates in hypothetical latin term "daca", which means "punhal". However this is once more an hypothetical word, which existence was never verified. Raphael Bluteau refers a possible Germanic origin (daguen) with contamintion to French (daque) towards the Italian (daga). Curiously the origin of the word may be similar to this proposal, only that the signification and the language of origin are other. Our word "adaga" must come from “ødi” [âdi], which means "adornament, embelishment", and “daku” [dake], which means killing, destroy, submit, ou de “dk” [dake], which is noble [8]. Therefore adaga comes from the expression “ødi dk” [âdidake] which will be noble's ornament, or from "addake", which will be killing adornamnent.

[8] - The form “dâku” is acadian, while the word "dk" is ugaritic. There also exist forms close from the old Hebraic. Possibly all were pronounced in a
close mode and would have similar signification.-

http://fernando-outroladodahistoria.blogspot.pt/2014/10/palavrasportuguesas-de-origem-fenicia-o.html


.

[Bob A]

I was stimulated by this thread to wonder why "Laz Bichaq", which seems to be a sword, or at least a bladed weapon of sword length, would be named "bichaq', which itself means, as best as I can determine, "knife" or "dagger".

Does this appellation arise from ethnographic sources, that is, a name applied by the original users? It seems sloppy usage to me, as knives and daggers as a term of common usage are generally shorter in length, seemingly topping out at about 12" in blade length.

But then there's the Khyber "knife", one of which in my possession has a 23" blade.

I'm just easily confused, I guess. Else I'd suspect that the natives lacked sufficient education to determine proper nomenclature of their tools.

[ariel]

Correct. I just chose the most direct and believable connections.
Also, "dagger" was associated with "daca", presumably a name for Dacian dagger, although all known Dacian daggers were crooked, and rightfully belong to the same group as "sica" ( sicarii used them), which likely stems from the Hebrew " sakin", knife.

Words mutate: Persian khanjar becomes Georgian khanjali, and from there Russian kinzhal. In Russian usage, any fighting double-edged short bladed weapon is kinzhal: thus, in Russian books one can see " kinzhal bichwa", " kinzhal kris", " kinzhal katar", and even "kinzhal kinzhal":-) etc. Some less picky authors apply it to single-edged implements as well: " kinzhal kukri", " kinzhal karud" etc.

Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a short-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Apparently ~ Ugaritic had 28 consonantal phonemes (including two semivowels) and eight vowel phonemes (three short vowels and five long vowels): a ā i ī u ū ē ō. The phonemes ē and ō occur only as long vowels and are the result of monophthongization of the diphthongs ay and aw, respectively. :)

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Ariel for these additional insights into these linguistic challenges in trying to describe these many weapon forms. Languages of course have often almost indeterminate degree of dialects as well as vernacular and colloquial terms.
It seems almost reasonable that westerners (Europeans) in these various spheres would misconstrue or mispronounce and transliterate this maelstrom of terminological idiosyncrasies. It is almost tempting to think they may have simply reappointed terms known to them regarding other weapons in more of a colloquial sense, i.e. yataghan for the salawar (though the recurve instance in many is noted).

The term karud, though resultant of phonetic interpretation, still serves as a now well emplaced term in our glossary to indicate this particular form of pesh kabz.

[fernando]

... Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a shot-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".
Makes all sense; as short blades were more like basic utensiles rather than weapons, villagers had no name to call them but generally knives. It was the wealthy that spent time naming the different swords.
Trying to establish a paralelism, i have learnt that, when a nation is invaded, the successive conquerors keep on changing the spoken language in the cities, courts and palaces, while the villagers keep speaking their old language; resulting that even nowadays there are in the local language hundreds of common words that have such remote origin.
The Iberian Peninsula was invaded by Romans, Barbarians and Arabs but portuguese (for one) still has remnants of its original language, one similar to the old Hebraic, to the Ugaritic, to the Acadian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

[ariel]

Bob A:

As a rule, Ottoman " kilich" swords ( sabers) were relatively long, with blades > 70-80 cm. Anything shorter than that was conventionally called "bichaq", knife.

In the largest published collections from Askeri Muze and Zagreb the greatest majority of yataghan blades are between 45-55 cm, and this is likely true for most examples in our collections. Often, Turkish sources refer to "yatagan bicagi" ( Kubur, sorry for simplified spelling) both to standard yataghans as well as to the knives of Yataghan form.

There was a thing called Varsak, referring to a "short saber of Crimean origin", but we have no material examples clearly identified as such. Carrying both varsak and bichaq in peaceful times was forbidden, and this is vaguely reminiscent of a story how yataghans became popular ( I.e. they were not formally swords).

Quite some time ago I posted a pic of the so-called bauernwehr, a variant of grossmesser: its blade in form and dimensions was indistinguishable from the Afghani "Khyber knife". It looked like a big knife to Brits, so it became a "knife".

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

That is a good point Jens, Europeans would transliterate the words phonetically, and miss the salient tones and diacritics pertinent.Depending on what language these individuals spoke, their own grammar rules would apply adding that variation to the transliteration.
Compound confusion!

Bob, you are not alone in being confused, as clearly seen in our attempts at clarifying these linguistic dilemmas. As Ibrahiim has well illustrated, many languages in additional to alphabet differences often have radically varied grammatical protocols and pronunciation conventions.

Actually, it is not as much any particular educational deficiency in native groups improperly describing things, including weapons, as it is the human propensity to seek brevity or colloquial words in common parlance.
In casual conversation or communication the use of slang, nicknames or catchy names often take the place of formal.

We could carry this ad hoc course in linguistics as applied to ethnographica ad infinitum in analogies and analysis of grammatical peculiarities. However, the entire purpose of the paper on the karud in the O.P. was to reveal further evidence on the etymology of the term for this dagger form.
It is well understood that this is far from a singular case of transliterated or transposed terms applied to a weapon form, and not necessarily done in the proper sense, or misapplied entirely.

These cases seem simply a litany of 'Hobson-Jobson' type instances where many perhaps improperly applied terms have become colloquial as collectors terms for various ethnographic weapons. As these terms have become firmly emplaced in our literature, it is at this point counter productive and unwarranted to consider revising them, and as has been suggested numerous times, better to simply include this data as historical footnotes in properly cited material in future reference.

[fernando]

Up to now i realized that, not only Europeans but all those who have travelled around the world, had to catch the sound and eventually write about the name of things they met, using their own alphabet; one may imagine arabic speakers, such great travellers, having to convert into their script whatever objects they heard being named by locals. One even has to consider how such names, once being perpetuated by strangers, were result of the perception of simple people or of intelectuals; it is perhaps pertinent to admit that, the name of a sword perceived by illiterate navigator crewmen might be distinct from that picked by one such Ibn Batuta.
Also we may consider that, the earliest the etymon is, the more corrupted it may have been.
And then we have the optional (different) name peoples use to address the same thing, depending on the area of the country where they reside; all of them good, as consuetudinary.
On the other hand and introspecting into the Western side of things, if we pick the consensual 'knife' term, when consulting the Oxford dictionary, the description includes a couple encrypted symbols, linked to Old english after Old teutonic but, for what is worth, it ends up assuming that, the root of the word is of uncertain etymology.
In any case the object called 'knife', as other, when used in other languages may not be a strict 'transfer' of the term to local composition, but one of different provenance.
Spaniards use 'cuchillo' and French use 'coucteau', both appearing to have a more traceable identification, with direct connection to latin 'culltellus'.
Whereas the term selected by Portuguese, 'faca', appears to have incognito parents. Latin 'falcula' being rejected, as well 'falx'; the arab "farkha" offers no plausibilty, as intrinsically appointing to a completely different direction. It is consensually a term certainly introduced by populars, admitedly pre-Roman, and of obscure origin.
Definitely, life of scholars/academics is not easy, having to deal with all these endless riddles; but there are so many living humans out there that, of those, many are that chose to struggle with such problematic tasks. Much easier for those that are pleased by understanding eachother with whatever means; and, in case spoken resources fail ... we can always resort to sign language :cool:.
All in all, discussing the nuances of terminology is not counter-productive nor unwarranted; it is imposing their revision that has no sense, instead.

[Jim McDougall]

Perfectly elaborated Fernando, and you have hit the chord pitch perfect. While the linguistics are fascinating, complexity notwithstanding, the point of all this reflects the suggestion placed in the paper of the original post.
This is that a term derived from developmental linguistic engineering, whether intentional or not in the course of evolution to describe a certain object etc. in present and known definition. should be removed.

It is rather like removal of a cornerstone from a structure because the component material is incongruent with the rest of the materials in place. Perhaps not a sufficient analogy and probably arguable if there are architects out there, but I think the point is clear.

We have lived with these misnomers and linguistic misteakes this long, so I agree, leave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?) :)

[fernando]

...bleave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?) :) ...
Rather impressive, Jim; i guess a peritus linguae latinae wouldn't do it better :cool:.
Thank you for giving a hand to compose my previous meaningless catharsis.
And speaking of languages, in order to back myself up with some solid consistence after meddling in this thread with a couple unschooled 'filology' stray shots, i have just acquired this book which shows the significant number of words still used in our vocabulary, based in the original language of my neighborhood, spoken before the Romans stormed the place with their 'linguae'.


.

[kronckew]

Ceterum censeo, when hannibal was organising his army to cross the alps and invade italy to destroy rome, he had to defeat a lot of roman allied tribes in the iberian penninsula, he enlisted the aid of the tribes along the western coast who were famously bellicose and had resisted successfully the roman offers. they ultimately lost, but remain bellicose. and they make fine wines ;) but for them, we all might be speaking french and drinking their rotgut grape juice.

[fernando]

I don't know if i catch your drift, Wayne but, i didn't hear you complaining about the whines they served you with the barnacles when you wandered around this spot :rolleyes: .

[kronckew]

I don't know if i catch your drift, Wayne but, i didn't hear you complaining about the whines they served you with the barnacles when you wandered around this spot :rolleyes: .

seems to have lost a bit in translation. ;)

:) was a bit of a obscure reference to the bravery of the section of iberia which became portugal, in resisting the initial spread of pax romanum and their lingua, and a poke in the ribs of the froggies while praising your wines, they are so proud of their wines, which to me are poor by comparison to those of portugal. (british wine is catching up and surpassing french, we still can't make a decent fortified wine yet here in the UK, that's OK tho, we import it from your neck of the woods. no doubt after the brexit we'll set up the old traditional smuggling routes again.)

hmm, i wonder if sailors ate the barnacles they scraped off their hulls.... i recall eating some mussels near lisboa one night, quite nice they were too. my vegan wife, now ex, had her usual salad. she did drink and enjoy the wine in large quantities tho. i recall a vinho verde with fondness, made her frisky. ;) we did eat a certain soup together a lot,AÇORDA ALENTEJANA , for the rest of you it's made with a big bunch of coriander, lots of garlic, bread and a poached egg on top (she did eat eggs. it remains a favourite of mine, i make it myself quite often, tho i do usually add some chicken breast as i use chicken stock (i didn't tell her y'all use chicken stock too - if she didn't know she wasn't bothered)... - it's getting close to dinner time and my mind drifts to food.).

[ariel]

During Napoleonic wars Brits could not import French or Spanish wines and switched to Portugese sources. Wines got oxidized during sea voyages, and alcohol had to be added to prevent fermentation. That's how port (from Oporto) became popular in Britain.
When we vacationed in the middle of nowhere in Portugal, in a small bed and breakfast place surrounded by mountaines and overlooking a lake. One day I spent 3 hours on the patio , eating ugly pears that tasted like ambrosia and writing a paper I procrastinated over for a year. Drank 2 bottles of local Port ( ~$3 per 750 ml bottle) and wrote away without any inhibitions. The paper was accepted without corrections.
Back home I tried to find the magic brew, but could not. My scientific productivity plummeted since.....

[kronckew]

you should have eaten more Açorda Alentejana, garlic is good for the memory. now, what were we talking about?

(i had some boiled vegetables, pork , a fried egg with a pork bone stock with oyster sauce gravy with about 4 cloves worth of chopped garlic, over pasta noodles for breakfast. it thins the blood and is good for all manner of ills - and i don't have to worry about smelling of garlic as i'm on my own.)

one of my neighbours commented to me recently 'was that wonderful smell from your end of the corridor yours? i love garlic'. i gave her a bunch of the dried garlic i used. sadly, other brits do not appreciate the aroma as much. a pox on them, i don't care.

[ariel]

Buddy, I eat garlic with my garlic!!!!!
Four cloves of garlic is for girls.

[kronckew]

i make up for it with extra bacon.

everything is better with bacon.

i eat bacon with my bacon.

beef stew tonite. i'll add more garlic to suppliment breakfast.

and some bacon.

[fernando]

... we did eat a certain soup together a lot, AÇORDA ALENTEJANA , for the rest of you it's made with a big bunch of coriander, lots of garlic, bread and a poached egg on top it remains a favourite of mine, i make it myself quite often, tho i do usually add some chicken breast ...
That´s the problem with Açorda the Alentejana way; too thin. You have to order them Migas, if you want something more substantial; whereas Açorda outside Alentejo goes with lots of stuff ... cod fish, shell fish, you name it; and again with a starry egg to mix with.

... During Napoleonic wars Brits could not import French or Spanish wines and switched to Portugese sources. Wines got oxidized during sea voyages, and alcohol had to be added to prevent fermentation. That's how port (from Oporto) became popular in Britain...
Well ... not so late, according to reliable sources. Port whine started being fortified during the late XVII century, much before Napoleon was born, in fact to prevent it from deteriorating during long sea trips.
Later in the second half of XVIII century a pre-fermentation fortifying process, together with a few other practices, was set up to establish what Port whine is nowadays. Eventually only in the XIX century all producers were using such method.

... One day I spent 3 hours on the patio , eating ugly pears that tasted like ambrosia and writing a paper I procrastinated over for a year. Drank 2 bottles of local Port ( ~$3 per 750 ml bottle) and wrote away without any inhibitions. The paper was accepted without corrections.
Back home I tried to find the magic brew, but could not. My scientific productivity plummeted since.....
Ah, ah, i know where to find that stuff. Actually within less than a month i will go up there and acquire the real thing; no label, no Institute proof mark, only the home made stuff. Not that i am needing to reinstall my productivity; only to get drunk with some class.

[fernando]

...sadly, other brits do not appreciate the aroma as much. a pox on them, i don't care...
And what diet do Brits fancy ... other than Port ? I'd hate to realize that you dudes chop the garlic in micro bits. The idea is to smash them with your fist; what do you know ?

[Bob A]

Since we've gone off the rails just a bit, I should mention that bacon is food for the gods. (As an aside from the above aside, my favorite quotes on the subject of pork are from the Joy of Cooking, where it was mentioned that "saints and pigs are more appreciated when they're dead" and "Eternity can be defined as a ham and two people".)

Beyond that, garlic is an absolute necessity for a worthwhile life. Sufficient garlic breath is a factor in preventing transmission of colds and flu through droplet contamination, as potential vectors are taken aback by the fumes. Pre-emptive garlic eating also assists in choosing the proper mate.

[mariusgmioc]

Beyond that, garlic is an absolute necessity for a worthwhile life. Sufficient garlic breath is a factor in preventing transmission of colds and flu through droplet contamination, as potential vectors are taken aback by the fumes. Pre-emptive garlic eating also assists in choosing the proper mate.

And... IT KEEPS THE VAMPIRES AWAY!

I can't believe you forgot mentioning the most essential feature!
:p

[kronckew]

urban myth put out by vampirs so they could have a ready supply of garlic to flavour their food as it has anti-coagulation properties, it enables vampirs to drain every last drop.

don't ask me how i know these things. if i told you i'd have to bite you.

[motan]

Hi all,
I am a late comer to this discussion because I have been away from computers for several weeks.
Ariel, I join the rest in congratulating you on the fine research work. Besides the facts presented, it is also very plausible, because in many languages short vowls are inserted in a consonant cluster whenever it is uncomfortable to pronounce. The best example I know is spoken Palestinian Arabic where this is done in almost every other word.
However, I also see kronckew's point: why not use karud whether it is invented or not? The naming question has been discussed many times as I understand, but it is a very important for this forum and therefore I will add my own opinion.
No method of naming is without serious flaws. The use of "collectors" terms may not reflect any insight at all and different names for the same items are common, as well as mindless copying of names read somewhere. Local "real" names are good to know, but are often generic and reflect a language of origin more that a type. Many names mean knife, dagger or sword in their language of origin' like saif in Arabic as opposed to shamshir in Persian.

This means that all names are rather loose denotations of certain types and not definitions or tool in a classification system, like in biological species for example. So, any discussion that has names as focus, and these very common in the forum, has really not much value and is far less meaningful than questions like age, origin, use, materials etc. It is not that the discussion of naming is without value, but in contrast to other subjects, there can not be absolute right or wrong because weapon names do not represent real entities.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, precisely.

[ariel]

Motan, thank you.
That is my sentiment exactly, and I stated it at the very end of my post.

There is no way we can undo a century of popular usage. Informal discussions will still use "Karud" as a stenographic term. There is, however, a measure of relief in finally knowing whence this European mistranscription come. It was called "Kard" in Farsi and "Kord" in Dari- speaking areas. It will be up to professional arms historians whether they continue to use it in academic publications. I am encouraged by a long list of authors describing it as " straight-bladed pesh kabz", which it is in reality.

Again, thanks to everybody for your interest and opinions.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi all,
I am a late comer to this discussion because I have been away from computers for several weeks.
Ariel, I join the rest in congratulating you on the fine research work. Besides the facts presented, it is also very plausible, because in many languages short vowls are inserted in a consonant cluster whenever it is uncomfortable to pronounce. The best example I know is spoken Palestinian Arabic where this is done in almost every other word.
However, I also see kronckew's point: why not use karud whether it is invented or not? The naming question has been discussed many times as I understand, but it is a very important for this forum and therefore I will add my own opinion.
No method of naming is without serious flaws. The use of "collectors" terms may not reflect any insight at all and different names for the same items are common, as well as mindless copying of names read somewhere. Local "real" names are good to know, but are often generic and reflect a language of origin more that a type. Many names mean knife, dagger or sword in their language of origin' like saif in Arabic as opposed to shamshir in Persian.

This means that all names are rather loose denotations of certain types and not definitions or tool in a classification system, like in biological species for example. So, any discussion that has names as focus, and these very common in the forum, has really not much value and is far less meaningful than questions like age, origin, use, materials etc. It is not that the discussion of naming is without value, but in contrast to other subjects, there can not be absolute right or wrong because weapon names do not represent real entities.


Motan,
A brilliantly written and concise closing summary to the discussion here, and perfectly describing these circumstances concerning the terminology used to describe various weapons.
You may be late to the discussion, but I cant help thinking of the analogy of 'the cavalry arriving' !! :)
Thank you!

Jim

[estcrh]

Motan, thank you.
That is my sentiment exactly, and I stated it at the very end of my post.

There is no way we can undo a century of popular usage. Informal discussions will still use "Karud" as a stenographic term. There is, however, a measure of relief in finally knowing whence this European mistranscription come. It was called "Kard" in Farsi and "Kord" in Dari- speaking areas. It will be up to professional arms historians whether they continue to use it in academic publications. I am encouraged by a long list of authors describing it as " straight-bladed pesh kabz", which it is in reality.

Again, thanks to everybody for your interest and opinions.

Ariel, actually you have been arguing that the term "karud" should not be acknowledged or used at all. You specifically mention using only "pesh kabz" or "kard"...........

Whether currently we should call it Peshkabz, acknowledging the similarity of their physical structure, or Kard, acknowledging its correct pronounciation, is a matter of individual preference, although some uniformity might be useful. But all references to a special weapon called Karud have no linguistic or scientific basis and should be stricken out from professional literature.

So how about other terms, how about "kirach", should it not just be a tulwar since the blade is just straight instead of curved?

[estcrh]

Interesting topic, Ariel. I applaud and support your work here.
And you are correct, I didn't use that term in Arms of the Paladins because it did not exist as a distinct word in its period of use. Like a number of other inaccurate names applied to weapons, it was recorded by early European and American students of arms and armor who were seeking to establish a viable taxonomy, as they heard it in situ.



Oliver, I have wondered why you would not use "karud" even in your auction descriptions, and I understand your intent but what about other similar words...take "pulowar" "pulwar" "pulouar"...I do not know of any text from the 1800s or early 1900s that uses any of these terms except for Egerton and later Stone, but numerous examples of "Afghan tulwar" exist. Why stop at "karud", why not examine each and every term and delete from our collective memories what is not absolutely historically or linguistically correct???

[Mercenary]

Oliver, I have wondered why you would not use "karud" even in your auction descriptions, and I understand your intent but what about other similar words...take "pulowar" "pulwar" "pulouar"...I do not know of any text from the 1800s or early 1900s that uses any of these terms except for Egerton and later Stone, but numerous examples of "Afghan tulwar" exist. Why stop at "karud", why not examine each and every term and delete from our collective memories what is not absolutely historically or linguistically correct???
You are absolutely right! Word "tulwar" is just "a sword". That is way in India there are "khanda tulwar", "sukhela tulwar", "kirach tulwar" and so. Most of the "Indian" terms that we use now are conditional and pseudo-scientific but we have no other.

[estcrh]

You are absolutely right! Word "tulwar" is just "a sword". That is way in India there are "khanda tulwar", "sukhela tulwar", "kirach tulwar" and so. Most of the "Indian" terms that we use now are conditional and pseudo-scientific but we have no other.
And there is also "talwar"??? Which one was first, did the original users call a certain sword "tulwar / talwar", if not then this particular word should not be used in any "academic publications" etc.

If it were not for the Europeans and others that first took the time to collect, name, research and preserve these weapons were would we be today, and they did it without the internet, I think its wrong to try and erase their contribution to the history of these weapons, even if not always linguistically correct, we owe a debt to these people.

[Mercenary]

And there is also "talwar"??? Which one was first, did the original users call a certain sword "tulwar / talwar", if not then this particular word should not be used in any "academic publications" etc.
Someone asked Indian: "What is this?" - "This is tulwar (a sword)". "And what is this?" - "This is kar(u)d (a knife)". Not a single specific type of weapon, but a common name.
You know in ancient India there were not specific names for flowers, fruits or some other similar group of things, only for very important things for Indians: "What is THIS?" - "It is a flower". "What is THAT one?" - "That is a flower too". "But what is the third one?" - "O! This is LOTUS!"

[kai]

Wow, there seems to be a huge amount of emotional attachment here!

If it were not for the Europeans and others that first took the time to collect, name, research and preserve these weapons were would we be today, and they did it without the internet, I think its wrong to try and erase their contribution to the history of these weapons, even if not always linguistically correct, we owe a debt to these people.
We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. (Well, rather lots of shoulders from along the normal distribution with only a minority of intellectual giants thrown in... ;))

While the longstanding collecting interest of rulers as well as lots of well-of folks worldwide certainly helped to rescue examples of material culture from the vagaries of conflicts, social change, climate, etc., we should not forget that the colonial/postcolonial times were (and still often are) not fair - not all "acquisitions" either...

However, knowledge is not carved in stone but evolves continually. There will always be changes and it doesn't help to cling to mere words, especially if current usage is shown to be based on misunderstandings or errors.

Discussions rarely lead to universally accepted results, even in an academic setting. A wise human being once remarked that outdated ideas often die with their long-time proponents... ;)

Here we rarely deal with rigorously established scientific facts that lead to clear results; we rather have a vast pool of diverse experiences and knowledge and its free sharing by active forumites yields very valuable insights. I'm sure we can live with some diversity including divergent point of views!

Regards,
Kai

[kronckew]

languages are not static, they are living things, constantly learning and evolving.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=estcrh]Ariel, actually you have been arguing that the term "karud" should not be acknowledged or used at all.

Eric, please be kind enough to actually read the last two words in your citation from my post :" Professional literature"



So how about other terms, how about "kirach", should it not just be a tulwar since the blade is just straight instead of curved?

Kirach or alt. kirich are likely to be ( mis) transcriptions of Turkic word for Kilic ( also just " sword"). That's my hint to you. If you wish to devote time and effort to uncover the real local name for this pattern, you are more than welcome. I shall be the first to applaud you.

[Mercenary]

Kir(a)ch (the same as in the case of kar(a)d).
"Kirch tulwar" (most correctly "kirch tuRwar") - straight sword, literally means "sword for to split (to cleave)".

[ariel]

So, the correct name of Kirach is Kirch?
Sounds good to me:-)

I applaud you.
BTW, where does this information come from?

[Mercenary]

The word is written like "kirch". But pronounced like "kir(a)ch", "kir(u)ch" and so. It depends on who is speaking and who is listening. When the Indians speak, then I, a Russian guy, hear how "kirЭch" (very short sound "Э", like "ae" in English).

[Mercenary]

BTW, where does this information come from?
Many thanks. I often travel around India, read in museums the descriptions in Hindi, communicate, talk to antique dealers and gunsmiths, and in Moscow I sit with Hindi/Urdu dictionaries))

[ariel]

Highly commendable.

Can you bring an official reference?

[Mercenary]

Highly commendable.

Can you bring an official reference?
:confused: About "kirch"? I am sorry. Only the word itself:
کرچ
किरच

[Mercenary]

Ariel, I have been searching for you some references for kirch, but look what I have found in Baden-Powell hand-book. I forgot about it.
Specially for you :)

[estcrh]

Dolche und Messer aus dem Persischen Kulturraum
1984 (Daggers and knives made ​​of the Persian cultural region
in 1984)

123 different daggers and knives from Islamic countries from the 17th-19th Century
60 pages, 2 color plates, numerous black and white photos, descriptions and history of development in German language.

[estcrh]

Egerton seemed to label just about any type of dagger as "pesh kabz". I give credit to the people who tried to sort out the distinct types by applying individual names. Some people seem to have just gone along with Egerton while others did not, which eventually led us to the current discussion. You can see what is clearly a pesh kabz #717, with two kards #721 and #722 and what looks to be a choora / karud #624


An Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms: Being a Classified and Descriptive Catalogue of the Arms Exhibited at the India Museum: with an Introductory Sketch of the Military History of India, Earl Wilbraham Egerton Egerton
W.H. Allen, 1880.

[estcrh]

George Stone basically followed Egerton. As noted earlier he also separately mentions the "karud" as being a straight bladed pesh kabz, referencing Moser, but in his illustration he has karud and pesh kabz lumped together and states that "as a rule the blade is straight" so are we to assume that the curved bladed pesh kabz were not well represented in that time period leading Stone to think that the straight blade was the most common construction? In our time, with the benefit of the internet, we have access to many images of karud and pesh kabz.

[estcrh]

P.Holstein, "Contribution A L’Etude des Armes Orientales", 1931. Vol. II, plate XX, the author shows both pesh kabz and karud daggers.

[estcrh]

So, is the kerala dagger a form of the pesh kabz?

[Mercenary]

Estcrh,

Very clearly. Million thanks.
Even if "karud" emerged as "kangaroo", as "kangaroo" it has the right to exist. #historydidit.

[estcrh]

Ariel, I have been searching for you some references for kirch, but look what I have found in Baden-Powell hand-book. I forgot about it.
Specially for you :)

From the book, here you see kirch (straight sword) mentioned as well as khanjar, which is described as a bigger version of the bichua dagger shown, which does not look like what we would call a "bichua". No mention of a curved pesh at all.

HAND-BOOK of the MANUFACTURES AND ARTS of the PUNJAB, 1872, B.H. BADEN POWEL

[Mercenary]

...which does not look like what we would call ...
It is solely our problems. In the book all right.

Peshkabz is just an object which necessary to keep differently unlike all Indian daggers. If it straight or curve - it is only the details.

[estcrh]

Kard daggers from George Stone.

[Ian]

Eric:

I think what you have succeeded in doing here with your last several posts is add support for Ariel's original comments, that the word "karud" has been widely adopted by the buying and selling community, and by a number of so-called authorities (in Western literature) who have largely perpetuated the early Western "error" of inventing a new word for what was originally "kard."

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, we should note that the source you quoted, "Dolche und Messer aus dem Persischen Kulturraum 1984 (Daggers and knives made ​​of the Persian cultural region in 1984)" is published by Hermanns Historica and based on their auction sales. This is not a highly academic source, makes quite a few errors in their catalogs, and largely reflects the customs and habits of the collecting community.

Lastly, I think the dagger you show as from Kerala may actually be from NW India (Rajastan) where there are many knives similar to those reported from Kerala. I would indeed call it a pesh kabz. In my experience the Kerala knives tend to have wider blades, although similar in overall appearance.

[Kubur]

P.Holstein, "Contribution A L’Etude des Armes Orientales", 1931. Vol. II, plate XX, the author shows both pesh kabz and karud daggers.

Well Eric
Holstein speaks only of pesh kabz...
The text under the picture is not from Holstein...
Nevertheless I share your general opinion.
Best,
Kubur

[ariel]

Eric,

Forgive me for saying it, but time after time you appear to believe that nobody here ( and me in particular) had ever seen books by Egerton, Stone and Baden-Powell. Well, allow me to disabuse you of that notion: we had. Bringing Stone as a final authority is not a great idea if you want to convince anybody here. Even Stone himself ( whom I admire deeply) openly admitted that his book needed to be updated with " more accurate information". Nothing is " carved in Stone":-)


Second, as Kubur has already mentioned, Holstein's book was written in French. Your illustration is Plate XX from Volume 2. The legend, however, is in English, translated by somebody who had his own ( or, likely, Stone's) ideas about the examples, and is completely fabricated: Holstein never had a legend to this plate or labeled any of the objects as "Karud". All of them were described in the text as Peshkabz. Where did you get this mistranslated source from? Are you trying to use this " false fact" as an argument in favor of your position?

And lastly, you seem to concentrate on my personal recommendation to use a correct term for a straight-bladed Peshkabz. You may not like it, and this is your right. Just as it is my right, as an author of the original post, to have my own opinion. " And the twain shall never meet".

Moreover, you have already agreed that the use of correct term is appropriate in academic publications, i.e. exactly what I have been saying from the beginning and what was clearly stated in the text of my original post. So, what are you arguing with?

[estcrh]

Eric,

Forgive me for saying it, but time after time you appear to believe that nobody here ( and me in particular) had ever seen books by Egerton, Stone and Baden-Powell. Well, allow me to disabuse you of that notion: we had. Bringing Stone as a final authority is not a great idea if you want to convince anybody here. Even Stone himself ( whom I admire deeply) openly admitted that his book needed to be updated with " more accurate information". Nothing is " carved in Stone":-) Ariel, please stop trying to speak for everyone here, I am not trying to convince anyone here of anything, I am showing examples from a variety of sources where the different terms came from, who said what and when. If you have seen it all then just dont look, other people now and in the future may not have seen them.


Second, as Kubur has already mentioned, Holstein's book was written in French. Your illustration is Plate XX from Volume 2. The legend, however, is in English, translated by somebody who had his own ( or, likely, Stone's) ideas about the examples, and is completely fabricated: Holstein never had a legend to this plate or labeled any of the objects as "Karud". All of them were described in the text as Peshkabz. Where did you get this mistranslated source from? Are you trying to use this " false fact" as an argument in favor of your position?Ariel, that is my PERSONAL interpretation, no more fabricated than any other, including your suggestions that we fabricate a completely new history by pretending that the work "karud" does not exist. In my opinion it is you that is recommending the use of false facts.


And lastly, you seem to concentrate on my personal recommendation to use a correct term for a straight-bladed Peshkabz. You may not like it, and this is your right. Just as it is my right, as an author of the original post, to have my own opinion. " And the twain shall never meet".In fact Ariel, we already have an accepted term for the "straight bladed pesh-kabz"....it is "karud". It is my right to disagree with you, and what exactly is your new correct term???


Moreover, you have already agreed that the use of correct term is appropriate in academic publications, i.e. exactly what I have been saying from the beginning and what was clearly stated in the text of my original post. So, what are you arguing with?Ariel what I have agreed with is that the known history of these terms absolutely should be brought up in academic publications and but that they should still be used.....you have and still do insist that the word "karud" should be stricken from academic publications.....two completely different and opposed thoughts.

[estcrh]

Eric:

I think what you have succeeded in doing here with your last several posts is add support for Ariel's original comments, that the word "karud" has been widely adopted by the buying and selling community, and by a number of so-called authorities (in Western literature) who have largely perpetuated the early Western "error" of inventing a new word for what was originally "kard."

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, we should note that the source you quoted, "Dolche und Messer aus dem Persischen Kulturraum 1984 (Daggers and knives made ​​of the Persian cultural region in 1984)" is published by Hermanns Historica and based on their auction sales. This is not a highly academic source, makes quite a few errors in their catalogs, and largely reflects the customs and habits of the collecting community.

Ian, I have not disagreed with Ariels thoughts on the subject except for his suggestion that the word "karud" no longer be used.....as we can all see there has been over time a progression as far as terms go. First there were general terms, then over time people struggled to categorize the many different forms into more identifiable categories based of certain features, either by blade, or hilt, overall shape etc.

For example, some sources mention the pesh kabz as only being straight bladed, with no mention of a curved blade, others take a completely different route and they lump the curved bladed and straight bladed together, while some people call the curved bladed type a pesh kabz and the straight bladed ones as karud.

There are no real rules, its good to have as much of the existing data available in one place and for people to make up their own minds based on how they see things.

Lastly, I think the dagger you show as from Kerala may actually be from NW India (Rajastan) where there are many knives similar to those reported from Kerala. I would indeed call it a pesh kabz. In my experience the Kerala knives tend to have wider blades, although similar in overall appearance.Now this would be an interesting new discussion.

[estcrh]

The Met Museum avoids using dagger names except for the katar in their book "Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art", David G. Alexander,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2015, I guess that is one way to solve the name situation. Jambiya, kard and khanjar are all described was "dagger". Just remove all "foreign terms"....humm....like that is so much better than including all of those pesky "foreign terms" with understandable explanations. The term "katar" is used once along with other possible names but the image has "punch dagger" as the description.

In keeping with the intention that this publication should be intelligible to the general reader as well as the specialist, foreign terms have been kept to a minimum.

[ariel]

OK Eric , you won.

"Don't worry, be happy" :-)

[Mercenary]

The Met Museum avoids using dagger names except for the katar in their book "Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art", David G. Alexander,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2015, I guess that is one way to solve the name situation. Jambiya, kard and khanjar are all described was "dagger". Just remove all "foreign terms"....humm....like that is so much better than including all of those pesky "foreign terms" with understandable explanations. The term "katar" is used once along with other possible names but the image has "punch dagger" as the description.
Very respectful. It is very right to write "sword" or "dagger", rather than experiment with unclear words. Special terms should be in special articles, but not in colorful albums.

[estcrh]

Very respectful. It is very right to write "sword" or "dagger", rather than experiment with unclear words. Special terms should be in special articles, but not in colorful albums.The book goes into very detailed descriptions on many different things, but somehow a simple jambiya is a "dagger", in fact in the Museums website, the exact same jambiya is called a jambiya but somehow for a book called "Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art" jambiya is too foreign????

[Mercenary]

The book goes into very detailed descriptions on many different things, but somehow a simple jambiya is a "dagger", in fact in the Museums website, the exact same jambiya is called a jambiya but somehow for a book called "Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art" jambiya is too foreign????
What is written in the descriptions of museums it is only for curious visitors.
At the forum there is slang, in conversations of collectors and dealers, in the descriptions of museums and richly illustrated books there is slang too.
Nobody forbids us to know that water it is H2O, but we ask "water" when we thirsty. Do not read the descriptions in the museums and albums at all except for items outside your circle of interests ))

[kronckew]

this thread: time for the funeral i think....

[estcrh]

this thread: time for the funeral i think....
No need for that, I did not see anyone complaining when it went off the track about food, wine...garlic etc. For those that are not interested there are other topics.

[David]

:rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1PYp-fsZOA

[kronckew]

No need for that, I did not see anyone complaining when it went off the track about food, wine...garlic etc. For those that are not interested there are other topics.

the digressions tend to support my position, but...

ah, well, carry on if you enjoy it. i'm off, time to walk the dog...bye.

[fernando]

... I did not see anyone complaining when it went off the track about food, wine...garlic etc...
You are right Eric, no one complained; but it appears that now they do :shrug: .

[Robert]

As this topic has grown stagnate and to keep it from once more going off track, I believe that it is now time to bring this discussion to a close. Possibly at a later date if there is renewed interest, I will be open to unlocking it on a trial basis.

Robert