Alan,
There was no attempt to assign the blame for the " name game". In my defense, I didn't even know that you were the culprit:-)
But you have made my point very well: I qualified the requirements by mentioning " immersion in the contemporary atmosphere", and your example of "keris" names does it beautifully.
.
This is exactly the reason why IMHO the " name game" has to be played as part of the holistic approach to the overall study of weapons: it is a reflection of the societal view of them. We are in complete agreement.
And this is why it needs to be played by people like yourself, at least in the field of Javanese kerises.
Having read a boatload of books about ottoman-to-indian swords , I definitely know more about them than the rest of the University of Michigan faculty, students, their significant others and pets :-))))
However, I am completely unqualified to add anything new to the field beyond what can already be found in Stone, Pant and Elgood.
A rather silly example: I can proudly advance a hypothesis that Indian " kirach" or "kirich" is just a mis-pronounced Turkish " kilij", i.e. just a "sword". However, in the absense of even rudimentary knowledge of any "indian" language and phonetics such a "discovery" would be plainly laughable.
|