Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
Hello Ariel,
You may have noticed that I specified "in my opinion"...
And yes, I am aware of the name variations but I am also aware that at least some of us can be a little more specific by consistently using specific names for specific swords.
We are neither Turkish to call all swords kiliç, nor Persians to call them shamshirs, but we are international collectors and can use more specific terms for clarity.  |
Nothing was meant to contradict you; if you read it as an attack, I apologize, I did not mean to offend you or anybody. The " Name Game" was specifically addressed to to the " kindjal-tanto" type definitions.
My whole point was that names depend on the language of origin: shamshir, saif and kilic are all translated as "sword" in their respective places of origin and will change depending who wields them or where they were bought. Moreover, we all grew on the Stone's "Glossary" that still is a Bible of collectors, but has some questionable points. Khanda for example was described as a straight sword with rounded and widened point, Old Indian Basket handle and reinforced edges. Well, in the Elgood's Jodhpur book there are quite a few khandas that lack most or all Stone's criteria. I asked him for the reason, and his explanation was simple: these swords existed over hundreds of years in localities with different languages ( even contemporary India has 60 official languages with more than a million speakers each in addition to a multitude of local ones). What was called Khanda in Gujarat not necessarily was regarded as such in Odisha. Bichwa and Baku are the names of the same dagger in different parts of India.
Or take Morocco for example: they have 2 major national weapons, Nimcha and Koummya. Well, locally they are called Saif ( Arabic origin) and Khanjar ( Persian origin).
I am all for calling weapons by their correct names, but linguistic origins do not necessarily coincide with our "Stone- derived" education. Ottoman swords with typical Persian blades were locally called " Kilic adjemi": a mix of a Turkish word for "sword" and acknowledgement of its Persian feature.
Sometimes, a cautious approach is useful: Lebedinsky's term "pseudoshashka" was appropriate , but Lord Elphinstone visiting Afghanistan in the first half of the 19th century specifically noted that locally they were calles "shumsheers". Paintings of the battle between Nader Shah Persians and Afghanis ( 18th century) show that both used guardless sabers and frescos in Western Georgian churches show Georgian aristocrats ( 17th century) carrying real "shashkas". Calling Afghani "pseudo-shashkas" and, especially, guardless sabers from Central Asian Khanates "shashkas" and tracing their origin to Russian Cossacks is against elementary historiography, since there was not a trace of Russian presence in Central Asia at those times. But we still see this word on e-bay, in Russian books and articles.
Again, I am all for using correct names, but sometimes it is difficult because of our ignorance. Robert Elgood collected close to 40,000 entries for different " Oriental" weapons. I hope his future Glossary will correct some of our confused definitions. Just wish he would not limit himself to Indian weapons , but saved couple of thousands of entry cards for the Islamic ones, too:-)