What an interesting topic. I'm glad there has been recent attention to the disparity in terminology with many of the ethnographic weapons most collect and some study. There may be a few here who recall my 'kaskara' conundrum with posts from about ten years ago, which brought almost no discussion and even less from a number of authors mentioned, nor academics involved in museum capacities. Briggs used the term 'kaskara' and Reed later used in in his article on 'Darfur kaskaras' but also specified the term 'saif Kasallawi' for them. Last year we were fortunate to have Ed join us, and his outstanding work on Kasalla (written contemporary to Reed) revealed the reasons behind the 'Kasallawi' designation.
I was actually quite surprised by the disinterest in most scholars and authors I queried on the term 'kaskara' and its origins, it was simply 'the term used for these swords, with no questions asked. In talking with individuals from Sudan, Darfur and Eritrea ( I used to work with many ethnic groups) not a single one had ever heard the term..only sa'if was used, however one man from Sudan noted they were sometimes called 'cross'. Recent research has revealed some further data which has more fortunately.
The term nim'cha and its misuse has been brought up repeatedly in its reference to the Moroccan sa'if, and the term itself is, as noted, discussed somewhat in Elgood ("Arms and Armour of Arabia"). I was glad that Louis-Pierre (LPCA) joined us on the other thread thouroughly examining the use, and misuse as well as likely etymology of the term. Through the years he has shared considerable research he has done on these weapons, including the 'flyssa', another curious sword whose origins remain obscure and the term a French application from 19th century tranliteration if I recall.
On another concurrent thread, in another twist to the nimcha conundrum I brought up the obvious collectors term 'Zanzibar' nimcha, a compounded misnomer, also largely met with resounding thud. The only 'author' I have seen using this term has been Tirri, whose book is an outstanding handbook for collectors, thus the term serves well.
There are so many terms used by collectors which derive from the venerable works of the profoundly respected works of the earlier writers of the 19th into the 20th century that indeed it is counterproductive to try to reassert or correct proper terms. It must be remembered that in many, if not most cases, the populus at large in most cultural spheres does not know colloquial terms for certain weapons, though there are likely many instances where in familiar circumstances they may have been called by nicknames or the like.
For example, in todays military the heavy machine gun carried rather selectively by certain soldiers in a group is nicknamed 'the saw', while it is of course recognized as a machine gun, but with specific official designation.
The importance of finding the origins and proper use of terms used for these ethnographic weapons, whether in regional or former parlance, cannot be underestimated. For those researching and trying to discover the development chronologically of a particular weapon, it is key when investigating earlier contemporary narratives and accounts to know these things so that descriptions can be evaluated accordingly. One of the earliest accounts known of the 'kampilan' in the Philippines is described in the the 16th century death of Magellan. However, does this refer to the sword we know in todays collections, or another form?
It is important to have a working glossary where the weapons we discuss have a common parlance, but it remains an important element of research to make known these important addendums to these terms used. It is also important to make every effort to avoid 'pidgeonholing' in describing the many hybrids and variations which as we know exist profoundly with the weapons endemic to most cultures. In these cases I think that descriptions should be carefully qualified beyond the more generic terms to characterize the specifics also considered.
|