Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[kronckew]

the vikings, like the japanese named individual swords of note. the tachi and katana are both curved swords, genus 'samurai swords' subclasses tachi and katana. simlar taxonomy for knives?

i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c.

arroz by any other name would small as sweet.

'karud' may not have started off as a proper unique word, but it has gained a life of it's own. english especially is famous for loan words and made-up words, ambiguous words, etc.. unlike france, or quebec, where you may get fined for using the english word for an item that has a french equivalent in french conversation, we do not have that restriction here. i hope.

[Lee]

I think that we collectors of ethnographic artifacts have found it very convenient (and fitting) to adopt what may have been a generic term (i.e. sword, knife, dagger) in the language or dialect of the producing culture as a specific term for an artifact of that culture. On many occasions what was recorded and became accepted has been 'in error' and a brief visit to your dusty copy of Stone's Glossary... should prove that. So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Lee

So, while karud may well remain a useful and specific term for us, it is still worthwhile for us to know the origins of this label.

But we need to know all the nuances, mentioned by D.Miloserdov and Ariel....

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent discussion, and as Lee has noted, many terms and long held 'chestnuts' concerning the spectrum of arms have been firmly in place or 'written in Stone' . However, as with most aspects of history and all its ancillary studies, it is well to learn all we can on origins and development of not just the forms, but their descriptive terms' etymology. Stone himself knew the frailty of his chosen subject matter, and that his work would serve as the benchmark it has become, and encouraged research to continue,

The very nature of these aspects are often of course nuanced, subtle and many have clearly gone unnoticed or unattended at large, which is exactly why these perspectives by Ariel and Dmitry are so well placed.

[ariel]

OK, I am back. Snoopy passed the test with flying colors. She came home and immediately fell asleep. Good girl.

Again, thank you all for your feedback.

The goal of my little research was to trace the origin of the word Karud and to tell a cautionary tale how important it is to read primary sources with attention.

To my great relief and satisfaction nobody questioned the veracity of my analysis. This is already good:-)

All the dissenting opinions were centered around a different question: given that right now we all know that Karud is not a real word, but a mistranscription of Kard, should we still use it in our communications and publications? Several Forumites said that the word Karud is so deeply ingrained in our vocabulary and so convenient to use, that abandoning it will make communications difficult if not impossible.

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz ( with straight blade).

Such is the case with the Polish book "Persian arms and armour" ( Ed. by A.R. Chodynski): see ## 177,179-181, 182. In that book, L. Kobylinski states that some examples of Peshkabz had recurved blades, while other had straight blades (p.65).
"Oriental weapons" by J. Caravana ( #59)
" Splendeur des armes orientales" (#209)
" Arms of the Paladins" by O. Pinchot (#3-107)
"Catalogue de la collection d'armes anciennes" by C Buttin ( ##699, 700)
"Contribution a l'etude...." By P. Holstein, (#141)
"Islamic and Oriental Arms and Armor" by R. Hales ( ## 19-21,24,27,32, 33, 36,79,140,167)
" Mortal Beauty" ( published under the aegis of Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow) #91
" The arts of the Muslim Knight" by B. Mohamed #183
" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)

As we can see, it is quite easy to communicate without involving the word "Karud".
And, for those who want a short and precise definition that is in complete agreement with the local usage, why not use
" shotorkosh"? :-)

On a serious note, nobody can ban a certain word from conversational practice. How about a compromise: using "Karud" in unofficial discussions ( yielding to the ardent devotees of this word), but avoiding it in any serious academic publication
( accepting the fact that it has nothing to do with local usage and became popular only due to phonetic mishap by the Europeans) ?

Although Shotorkosh still sounds grand! :-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, I think there is no reason to catastophise: multiple authors of important publications manage not to use the word Karud at all, designating these daggers simply as Peshkabz.

But they are not pesh-kabz, why didnt the makers of these daggers just create more pesh-kabz if they were making peshkabz???? Just because they are similar in some aspects does not make then the same and just because SOME authors made the mistake of thinking that the karud and pesh-kabz are the same why should we?

Why stop here, lets not call a "choora" a choora, or a "kyber knife" a kyber knife...the original makers of these weapons did not call them by these names.

Take the Indian tegha sword, similar to a tulwar but different enough to have its own name, the list goes on, I could show many such examples.

And while we are at it, since you brought up the "kard" dagger many times, just because the karud and the dagger we now call a "kard" both have only one cutting edge does not make them the same either, examples below.

I trust what my eyes see, not what some authors decides is right, they have been wrong before, on many occasions, same with museums, and auction houses etc. We now have online an abundance of images and can see for ourselves which weapons are basically the same and which are different enough to have a separate name.

Look at the examples of karud and kard daggers below...would anyone mistake them for being the same?

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

" Arms and Armor from Iran" by M. M. Khorasani: #260. I think nobody would argue with his mastery of Persian language and arms :-)
He also mentions that locally Peshkabz with straight blade was called " shotorkosh", camel killer ( p.237)

Ariel, karud daggers come from India, Afghanistan as well as Persia (I do not remember ever seeing an ottoman karud), what is the Indian name and what is the Afghan name, and why should we in the west be confined to what some native many years ago supposedly called a certain weapon if it now has a currently used and accepted name. On the other hand, if a particular weapons proved to be different enough to have an individual name and it ws not already named this would be a different matter entirely.

[ariel]

Eric,
You are missing the point again.
Kard, just like choora is just a " knife" in Persian and "Hindoostanee" respectively. Here Gilchrist was 100% correct.
Nobody with a minimal knowledge of weapons from that area would confuse kard with peshkabz ( or even karud, if you want it). Two immediate differences just jump out at you: peshkabz has a sudden narrowing of the blade next to the handle and also has a T-spine.
But all of them are just knives.
Perhaps, you should look at the references I cited and let all of us know why they are NOT peshkabz ( es?).

Overall, I take my hat off to you, if you think that all the abovementioned authors ( including Mohamed, Pinchot, Kobylinski, Hales, Buttin, Holstein etc.) were mistaken, and you alone are correct.


In one thing you are unquestionably correct: Persian peshkabz with recurved blade , Central Asian and Indian "Karud" ( you see how accomodating I am?) with straight blade and Afghani Mahsud choora all belong to the same family, with just ethnic variations.

As to Khyber knife, this is yet another example of the European domination of printed word in general and weapon literature in particular. Over here somebody mentioned long ago the work of a Latvian knife aficionado Denis Cherevichnik: he found an old Pashto-English dictionary in which this weapon was locally called " selawah". This is the origin of the pre-"Khyber knife" European moniker Salawar Yataghan: Selawah mutated to British transcription Salawar, and yataghan possibly was added because of a similarity of the recurved profile of some "khybers" to a more familiar Ottoman weapon.

Here is the reference ( took me some time to find it in old archives):

Raverty, H. G. (Henry George). A dictionary of the Pukhto, Pushto, or language of the Afghans: with remarks on the originality of the language, and its affinity to other oriental tongues. Second edition, with considerable additions. London: Williams and Norgate, 1867



________________________________________
سیلاوه selā-waʿh, s.f. (3rd) A large and long knife, a formidable weapon about two feet long or more, used by the Afg̠ẖāns. Pl. يْ ey
(Raverty, 1867.P. 1143)

[estcrh]

Here is a mention of a "karud" knife, 1825.


Hindoostanee Philology: Comprising a Dictionary, English and Hindoostanee; with a Grammatical Introduction, Volume 1, John Borthwick Gilchrist, Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen, 1825.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

... i'm also reminded of the made-up word 'falcata' used for spanish kopis-like sword after the mid 19c...

As an empirical i am fond of neologisms but, when Fernando Fulgosio decided to put a name to this thing in 1872, he was hardly building one. Remember there was no record of how this sword was called by its ancestor users, so he got hold of some latin (Roman) script quoting this sword they greatly appreciated, ensis falcâtus and, aware of the curved (sickle) attribution, off he went. Only in the current case he made it simple, only opting for connoting the form of the blade and declining the substantive 'sword', after ensis.
Certainly more complicated is when authors have to refer, in their own (english) phonetic manner, to swords named in all languages, attending to the sound pronounced by their nationals; and eventually omitting the term ethimology, something which would give the reader a more accurate perception. I see how Portuguese established contact with weapons (and all) they encountered during their XVI century travels and chroniclers had to put them in writing; the deal was to turn into portuguese as per the sound they heard. Then once it is written, is perpetuated.
You don't see many (any) weapons in Stone with a Portuguese name; he entitles his work as 'in all countries in all times' but i suspect he didn't contemplate this little corner. The only time so far i found a familiar term (page 3) is result of a gaffe; he joins the term Adaga with Adarga, whereas the first is a dagger and the second is a shield... terms with completely different origins.

Originally Posted by kronckew

... arroz by any other name would small as sweet. ...

You mean arroz doce, sweet rice; your portuguese is improving .

[Oliver Pinchot]

Interesting topic, Ariel. I applaud and support your work here.
And you are correct, I didn't use that term in Arms of the Paladins because it did not exist as a distinct word in its period of use. Like a number of other inaccurate names applied to weapons, it was recorded by early European and American students of arms and armor who were seeking to establish a viable taxonomy, as they heard it in situ.

Fernando and Alan, please forgive me for reiterating what you have already stated with modesty, simplicity, and complete accuracy in this thread... Karud is nothing more than the precise transliteration into Latin letters of the way the Persian word kard (which just means "knife") was and is pronounced in Persian and Dari: with a distinct alveolar trill. Another example would be the word for “leather,” charm, which comes out sounding like charrr-um.)

The problem lies, not with Persian, but with the pronunciation of the letter R in American and British English, French and German; it is virtually impossible to transliterate even an approximately similar sound in these languages without inserting a U between the R and D, simply because none of them roll the R in common speech. Italian, Spanish, Russian (and many others,) however, would likely not have the same problem. Conversely, I could not for a moment imagine how an Iranian scholar would go about transliterating the American pronunciation of the word squirrel into Persian.

[Oriental-Arms]

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Oriental-Arms

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Easy
Khyber Karud
or Khyber kard...
I don't know now I'm confused....

I think khyber-karud is a good description, it is nothing like what collectors call a "kard".

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Oriental-Arms

And what would you name this one: 30 inches long. Shown below next to a more common "Karud" or "kard" or "Peshkabz" 14 inches long.

I would name this one "MINE"!!! A beauty, nicely made, an excellent example of a gigantic karud...certainly not a kard or pesh-kabz. There are from time to time certain weapons that just bend the rules a bit, not quite one thing or another, not everything is a perfect fit. A kyber-karud..humm

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

Interesting topic, Ariel. I applaud and support your work here.
And you are correct, I didn't use that term in Arms of the Paladins because it did not exist as a distinct word in its period of use. Like a number of other inaccurate names applied to weapons, it was recorded by early European and American students of arms and armor who were seeking to establish a viable taxonomy, as they heard it in situ.

Oliver, I have wondered why you would not use "karud" even in your auction descriptions, and I understand your intent but what about other similar words...take "pulowar" "pulwar" "pulouar"...I do not know of any text from the 1800s or early 1900s that uses any of these terms except for Egerton and later Stone, but numerous examples of "Afghan tulwar" exist. Why stop at "karud", why not examine each and every term and delete from our collective memories what is not absolutely historically or linguistically correct???

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Oliver, I have wondered why you would not use "karud" even in your auction descriptions, and I understand your intent but what about other similar words...take "pulowar" "pulwar" "pulouar"...I do not know of any text from the 1800s or early 1900s that uses any of these terms except for Egerton and later Stone, but numerous examples of "Afghan tulwar" exist. Why stop at "karud", why not examine each and every term and delete from our collective memories what is not absolutely historically or linguistically correct???

You are absolutely right! Word "tulwar" is just "a sword". That is way in India there are "khanda tulwar", "sukhela tulwar", "kirach tulwar" and so. Most of the "Indian" terms that we use now are conditional and pseudo-scientific but we have no other.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

You are absolutely right! Word "tulwar" is just "a sword". That is way in India there are "khanda tulwar", "sukhela tulwar", "kirach tulwar" and so. Most of the "Indian" terms that we use now are conditional and pseudo-scientific but we have no other.

And there is also "talwar"??? Which one was first, did the original users call a certain sword "tulwar / talwar", if not then this particular word should not be used in any "academic publications" etc.

If it were not for the Europeans and others that first took the time to collect, name, research and preserve these weapons were would we be today, and they did it without the internet, I think its wrong to try and erase their contribution to the history of these weapons, even if not always linguistically correct, we owe a debt to these people.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by estcrh

And there is also "talwar"??? Which one was first, did the original users call a certain sword "tulwar / talwar", if not then this particular word should not be used in any "academic publications" etc.

Someone asked Indian: "What is this?" - "This is tulwar (a sword)". "And what is this?" - "This is kar(u)d (a knife)". Not a single specific type of weapon, but a common name.
You know in ancient India there were not specific names for flowers, fruits or some other similar group of things, only for very important things for Indians: "What is THIS?" - "It is a flower". "What is THAT one?" - "That is a flower too". "But what is the third one?" - "O! This is LOTUS!"

[kai]

Wow, there seems to be a huge amount of emotional attachment here!

If it were not for the Europeans and others that first took the time to collect, name, research and preserve these weapons were would we be today, and they did it without the internet, I think its wrong to try and erase their contribution to the history of these weapons, even if not always linguistically correct, we owe a debt to these people.

We're all standing on the shoulders of giants. (Well, rather lots of shoulders from along the normal distribution with only a minority of intellectual giants thrown in... )

While the longstanding collecting interest of rulers as well as lots of well-of folks worldwide certainly helped to rescue examples of material culture from the vagaries of conflicts, social change, climate, etc., we should not forget that the colonial/postcolonial times were (and still often are) not fair - not all "acquisitions" either...

However, knowledge is not carved in stone but evolves continually. There will always be changes and it doesn't help to cling to mere words, especially if current usage is shown to be based on misunderstandings or errors.

Discussions rarely lead to universally accepted results, even in an academic setting. A wise human being once remarked that outdated ideas often die with their long-time proponents...

Here we rarely deal with rigorously established scientific facts that lead to clear results; we rather have a vast pool of diverse experiences and knowledge and its free sharing by active forumites yields very valuable insights. I'm sure we can live with some diversity including divergent point of views!

Regards,
Kai