Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

ariel · 14th January 2016, 02:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14th January 2016, 02:39 PM	#112
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%. India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts. Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed. The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples. In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes. It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers. I have witnessed heated arguments about a "true" name: katar or jamadhar? As Pushkin used to say about Russian revolts: " senseless and merciless".