This is a fascinating and brilliantly posed question by Josh. Naturally most modern news accounts of current events noting the relatively unusual use of edged weapons in such actions note same typically in rather collective terms. One thing I have always noticed in contemporary narratives on historically significant events is that edged weapons are seldom described other than in general terms. I often noticed even in military history references there is often emphasis on artillery and firearms in detail, but any type of sword is either 'curved or straight' if any detail given.
While in many cultures ethnographically there are significantly key edged weapons, these are seldom addressed by the terms they are known by. In one news account of these kinds of events in Saharan regions many years ago I do recall a tribal chieftain (possibly Tuareg) who expressed in an interview, 'we raised our 'takoubas'' referring to their taking action.
Another case in point is the collective use of the relatively modern term 'machete' which describes of course heavy bladed chopping edged weapons used typically in tropical climate regions for cutting through jungle foliage. Over the years, most often in news events in Africa of course, the gruesome use of edged weapons typically refer to machetes, though these may have been various types of indigenous weapons.
In this instance, even beyond the collective and broadly used terms for many weapon forms, are the terms used in the same manner for ethnic groups such as the Uyghurs. The term is known in somewhat ancient records and in more modern times refers typically to Muslim peoples of the Xinjiang regions in western China, however it has been noted that for many centuries these people had no specific name (Lattimore, 1973).
The Uyghur classification was apparently adopted by Turkic Muslims primarily from Tarim basin at the 1921 conference at Tashkent, according to a reference noted in a 'Wiki' entry, which I have used for convenience for some details.
I suppose these factors in using news items for detail reveal the potential caveats in such details if they were indeed included, however they do serve well as benchmarks for the brilliantly posed and pertinent question Josh has set forth here.
Having noted that, I would very much second Andrew's most pertinent caveat here as well, considering the stream of volatile events unfolding as we speak.
|