[Jim McDougall]

As noted, it makes sense that the emphasis on blades would be taken.
The type of blade is of course of great consequence with a sword, and the hilt is simply designed to carry out the function of the blade. The reason hilts are often referred to in describing certain ethnographic sword types is that they are commonly regarded as of local preference.

Clearly with Indian swords, in many cases the blade character determines the term used for the sword, such as kirach, tegha for example. G.N.Pant (1980) placed his focus on hilts and tried to establish regional classification for tulwars which of course had only marginal success. Tulwar hilts of a traditional form over several hundred years were often produced in one location and went to others where they were decorated in motif favored there in many cases. In many cases, as noted, the same basic traditional hilt form was produced but with variation on its elements such as most notably the pommel dish, quillons and the langet/chowk combination. The grip can also have certain variation.


Many of the terms for swords such as 'sirohi' refer to blades made in that city in Rajasthan. Many tulwar hilts are considered from Rajasthan, but many called by the name of a city in Rajasthan they are somehow associated with (as per Pant, 1980) such as Marawari; Udaipuri;

The 'khanda' which of course is initially regarded as Marathi from Deccan, and west India origins was diffused northward into Rajput regions where these were used by them as well as Sikhs. Post contact these were altered into what became known as the 'Hindu basket hilt', and as well known, often fitted with European blades, which seems the prime case with the use of the firangi term.

I once asked a Sikh if there was a way to distinguish a Sikh weapon...he wryly smiled and said, 'if a Sikh used it, then its a Sikh weapon".

We often see various weapon forms classified as Sikh, Rajput, Mughal, Hindu so here we have the cultural/religious denominator.

The bottom line is that usually, the native population seldom, if ever, refers to a weapon specifying any such classification by blade, hilt, religion, regional or otherwise.
They simply use the dialectic term for 'sword' at hand locally, or within the context of the group they are in.
In India, in northern regions the tulwar means sword, any type.
In Persia, shamshir has similar use, but typically means curved.

In "Armies of the Caliphs" (Kennedy), it is noted swords were often called by the place they were made by Muslims.

In studying the 'kaskara' of Sudan, I spent years trying to discover where the term came from. Apparently there, not a single native person had any idea of the term, let alone where it might have come from. When shown photos of a kaskara, people I spoke with immediately called it sa'if. One man, said they called it a 'cross'. Eventually, as usual, it turned out this was a loan word used by writers, later collectors to describe these broadswords.
Natives interviewed by Reed (1987) found that these broadswords were called 'Kasallawi' due to this was now where they were made (post 1950s).

I really dont think there is a universal way to classify ethnographic swords, and for the sake of discussion feasibility it makes most sense to use the term most commonly held rather than any attempt to correct or debate terms.
Surely a footnote or cross reference is most helpful.