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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description of museum collections and the museum work in whole is only a small part of the science of weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderator's note!
 

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

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

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


https://www.spreukenengezegdes.nl/in...ot-make-it-so/

☺☻☺

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

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

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