Nihl put his finger right on the target: our current " classification" of Indian weapons largely comes from European ethnographers with all its limitations of : a). defining the name based on a limited local moniker, b). mistaken transliteration due to the inability of the ethnographers to account for their imperfect hearing of a local dialect ( "Karud" is a classic example) and c). if in the dark, just give it a name of your own invention ( Khyber knife, salawar yataghan, Madrasi rapier etc.). On top of that I would add the timing of the encounter: India is an ancient civilization and a particular weapon might have had several names over 2-3 millennia or being lost altogether.
This is why we are so confused and even antagonistic when the name of, say, khanda is used the define swords clearly not agreeing with " classic" forms as per the same Egerton and Stone? Naive question: is what we call Patissa as per Egerton and Stone, simply an earlier local name for what in the future would be called Khanda?
Regretfully, Indian arms historians were not of much help early on and jumped on board when the Egerton/Stone approach was already firmly established and their books were used as standard sources by the European museums, collectors and dealers.
I think that Elgood's alternative naming of some Indian weapons is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to bring their classification closer to truth.
|