I agree with virtually every Nihl's and Jim's positions, especially with Nihl's insistence to call bladed weapons whenever possible by their original names used by their original owners . By the same token, we need to clean our vocabularies of all European-invented names at least in the academic discussions /publications. Again, some " invented " names have contaminated the field so widely, that many, if not most, poorly-informed collectors and dealers are simply unaware of their mistakes. Let them use those in private conversations, but let us, the informed, try to adhere to historical academic standards. Perhaps, their true original names will re-acquire their correct places and the " invented" ones will painlessly disappear to everybody's satisfaction.
The " salavar yataghan" is an example: it consists of a mistranliteration of the native " selaavah" and a totally artificial addition of " yataghan". The latter, as Nihl correctly noted is an addition of an unrelated term simply because of theit common recurved blade.
Interesting to note the Deccani Sailaba, a short recurved sword with T-structure, Kazakh Selebe, a straight short sword, a South Siberian Suleba ( morphed into Russian Selebka). This suggests a common Turkic origin of the name and the weapon itself and deserves academic attention. That is the value of the despised " name game": the word-name points out to the origin of the object, and this is an important goal of the historical research.
|