WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD?

fearn · 13th June 2010, 11:34 PM

You know, the first time I saw that "sword vs. dagger" rule was in Dungeons and Dragons as a kid, and I'm still not sure where it came from.

It's arbitrary.

A jambiya is a jambiya is a jambiya. Just as a four-foot long khukuri (the longest I'm seen) is still a khukuri.

If you want a guidance about when a dagger or knife is a "sword," I made up a rule called "the chop test." Basically, daggers are too light in the tip to chop effectively, and they tend to be used to slice or stab. If a blade is long enough for an effective chop, you can start thinking about it as a sword.

Obviously, my little kitchen cleaver isn't a sword, so this rule really only works on blades that are "sword shaped." In general, sword blades are more lightly built than knife blades, due to simple physics (see next paragraph). You use swords a bit differently than you do knives, and if you chop with them, it does something worthwhile. This arbitrary rule helps sort out when you can use something like a sword, and when you can use it only like a dagger. The break point is somewhere between 1 and 2 feet long, depending on blade shape.

Physics? Sure, blade weight scales as the cube of the length, and it's really not worth using something that weighs more than about 2-3 pounds. Therefore, if you want a long blade, you need to make it thinner. Therefore, swords tend to be built more lightly than a dagger of the same silhouette.

My 0.002^3 cents,

F

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 12:38 AM

Trying to place a finite classification like this on ethnographic weapons is a challenge at best. It seems terminology has often confounded the study of weapons, especially in tracking thier development as the terms used in so many contemporary accounts and narratives can present false leads.

As Emanuel has shown in much of the excellent research he has done on the 'flyssa', in this case the term can apply indiscriminately to virtually the entire range of edged weapons associated with this regional form. The term itself refers to the Ifflissen tribal confederation of the Kabyles, a Berber people of Northern Algeria. The tribe was considered the predominant armourers producing these weapons, as noted by the French c.1830s.
It would be interesting to determine what term is applied locally to the variations of these, but to collectors they are all 'flyssa' regardless of length.

As has been noted, the janbiyya in Arabia can reach rather large size as with the Wabbhi versions in the Hejaz and Yemen, which I believe are 'sabaki' and varying terms according to region. Though they are essentially of a size like a short sword, a sword would be a sa'if, while the other term does not otherwise specify.
In other parts of Arabia the term janbiyya is used for daggers in some regions while in others the term khanjhar in used. Interestingly the term khanjhar is linguistically the root of the term hanger, which as we know is actually often describing a short sword.

Elgood has described the misuse of the term 'nimcha' in describing the full size sa'if of Morocco by noting that in Arabic the term actually means 'short sword'. It is generally accepted in that in most Arabic speaking regions the sword is referred to generally as sa'if.

In Afghanistan the often huge Khyber knife is clearly anything but a 'knife' and also termed a 'Salawar yataghan'.....while it is clearly not a yataghan by generally held definition.

As Fearn notes, kukris regardless of the widely varying size are still considered kukris.

I would say that ethnographically and particularly linguistically, most edged weapons are described in somewhat general terms, thier function more important than classification, as noted a western preoccupation.

Transliteration and semantics haved also played an important part in establishing the now generally held nomenclature used among the collecting community of edged weapons.

A. G. Maisey · 14th June 2010, 04:10 AM

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material

It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material

It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

The above is noted, but the subject of importation laws was discussed at some length in a previous post. The subject here relates to Jambiya and their length> I am pleased that the post has generated discussion as there seems to have been, (APART FROM IN A FEW CASES), a lack of response to posts lately. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has contact with the Middle East, and who can give us some insight regarding the names used for these in that area. Is there a different name used for regular size jambiya and those which are verging on sword size.

Stu

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The above is noted, but the subject of importation laws was discussed at some length in a previous post. The subject here relates to Jambiya and their length> I am pleased that the post has generated discussion as there seems to have been, (APART FROM IN A FEW CASES), a lack of response to posts lately. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has contact with the Middle East, and who can give us some insight regarding the names used for these in that area. Is there a different name used for regular size jambiya and those which are verging on sword size.

Stu

Interesting thoughts Stu, and in recent discussion it seems as I understand, the Australian laws prohibit importation of katars as they are classified as 'push daggers'. Interestingly many of these, particularly from the south in India, are slashing daggers, not push daggers as typically perceived. Much as with the pata, these were used in slashing cuts by the Mahrattas, who detested the thrust.

In Arabia, the familiar janbiyya types are actually termed khanjar in Oman, al Hasa, the Emirates, Muscat and parts of Hadhramaut while the term janbiyya begins in southern Arabia temporally at about Dhufar. Here the very large Wahhabi janbiyyas of short sword type become 'subak' in the Hejaz; 'sabik' in Asir; and 'sabiki' in the Yeman borders in the south.

In Rwala the long broad blade type is 'gdaimi' while the shorter broad blade khanjar is still called that.

In the Nejd, the terms 'giddamiyyah' and 'sibriyyah' are used by the Badu, but it is unclear on the meaning exactly, probably the terms are used along with khanjar to qualify size perhaps.

In the Middle East, it seems the khanjar term is used for some of the dagger forms, but as far as larger dagger type swords I think of the Qama for one, which can reach remarkable proportions. In India there are khanjar hilt swords whose blades are long and recurved like pesh kabz, but the term applied I am not sure of.

While I am sure others out there have far more information, I just added these for starters, and look forward to any corrections applicable.

All the best,
Jim

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 07:28 AM

Hi Jim and thanks for those comments. What I am trying to establish, is if there is a DIFFERENT term used for the shorter and longer versions of what are variously described as SABIKI, SABAK, DHARIA etc, depending on who's book you are reading. The term WAHABITE is purely (as far as I am aware) a term of "convenience" used to loosely describe these long Jambiya, which (I assume) were used by the Wahabite amongst others.
The name of the "normal" daggers of Arabia such as Khanjar etc are not at issue here.
Regards Stu

A. G. Maisey · 14th June 2010, 08:48 AM

Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once.

My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law.

We have already defined it.

In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies.

I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests.

For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

ALEX · 14th June 2010, 08:54 PM

I also think the length/size of the sword or dagger does not change the classification/type, considering the same proportions!!! As an example, here's a Khyber, very large one, almost of a sword length. It is similar in shape with smaller Khybers, so I'd call it a Khyber sword, opposite to Khyber dagger/knife. However, as already pointed out - there are different local names for variations of similar type, but they're not determined only by size, but by design and proportions.

13th June 2010, 11:34 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	You know, the first time I saw that "sword vs. dagger" rule was in Dungeons and Dragons as a kid, and I'm still not sure where it came from. It's arbitrary. A jambiya is a jambiya is a jambiya. Just as a four-foot long khukuri (the longest I'm seen) is still a khukuri. If you want a guidance about when a dagger or knife is a "sword," I made up a rule called "the chop test." Basically, daggers are too light in the tip to chop effectively, and they tend to be used to slice or stab. If a blade is long enough for an effective chop, you can start thinking about it as a sword. Obviously, my little kitchen cleaver isn't a sword, so this rule really only works on blades that are "sword shaped." In general, sword blades are more lightly built than knife blades, due to simple physics (see next paragraph). You use swords a bit differently than you do knives, and if you chop with them, it does something worthwhile. This arbitrary rule helps sort out when you can use something like a sword, and when you can use it only like a dagger. The break point is somewhere between 1 and 2 feet long, depending on blade shape. Physics? Sure, blade weight scales as the cube of the length, and it's really not worth using something that weighs more than about 2-3 pounds. Therefore, if you want a long blade, you need to make it thinner. Therefore, swords tend to be built more lightly than a dagger of the same silhouette. My 0.002^3 cents, F Last edited by fearn; 14th June 2010 at 12:56 AM. Reason: clarification

14th June 2010, 08:54 PM	#8
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	I also think the length/size of the sword or dagger does not change the classification/type, considering the same proportions!!! As an example, here's a Khyber, very large one, almost of a sword length. It is similar in shape with smaller Khybers, so I'd call it a Khyber sword, opposite to Khyber dagger/knife. However, as already pointed out - there are different local names for variations of similar type, but they're not determined only by size, but by design and proportions. Attached Images

14th June 2010, 12:38 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,299	Trying to place a finite classification like this on ethnographic weapons is a challenge at best. It seems terminology has often confounded the study of weapons, especially in tracking thier development as the terms used in so many contemporary accounts and narratives can present false leads. As Emanuel has shown in much of the excellent research he has done on the 'flyssa', in this case the term can apply indiscriminately to virtually the entire range of edged weapons associated with this regional form. The term itself refers to the Ifflissen tribal confederation of the Kabyles, a Berber people of Northern Algeria. The tribe was considered the predominant armourers producing these weapons, as noted by the French c.1830s. It would be interesting to determine what term is applied locally to the variations of these, but to collectors they are all 'flyssa' regardless of length. As has been noted, the janbiyya in Arabia can reach rather large size as with the Wabbhi versions in the Hejaz and Yemen, which I believe are 'sabaki' and varying terms according to region. Though they are essentially of a size like a short sword, a sword would be a sa'if, while the other term does not otherwise specify. In other parts of Arabia the term janbiyya is used for daggers in some regions while in others the term khanjhar in used. Interestingly the term khanjhar is linguistically the root of the term hanger, which as we know is actually often describing a short sword. Elgood has described the misuse of the term 'nimcha' in describing the full size sa'if of Morocco by noting that in Arabic the term actually means 'short sword'. It is generally accepted in that in most Arabic speaking regions the sword is referred to generally as sa'if. In Afghanistan the often huge Khyber knife is clearly anything but a 'knife' and also termed a 'Salawar yataghan'.....while it is clearly not a yataghan by generally held definition. As Fearn notes, kukris regardless of the widely varying size are still considered kukris. I would say that ethnographically and particularly linguistically, most edged weapons are described in somewhat general terms, thier function more important than classification, as noted a western preoccupation. Transliteration and semantics haved also played an important part in establishing the now generally held nomenclature used among the collecting community of edged weapons.

14th June 2010, 04:10 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem. The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:- Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956. Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets): (a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and (b) having: (i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or (ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and (c) made of any material It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm. If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

14th June 2010, 07:28 AM	#6
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	Hi Jim and thanks for those comments. What I am trying to establish, is if there is a DIFFERENT term used for the shorter and longer versions of what are variously described as SABIKI, SABAK, DHARIA etc, depending on who's book you are reading. The term WAHABITE is purely (as far as I am aware) a term of "convenience" used to loosely describe these long Jambiya, which (I assume) were used by the Wahabite amongst others. The name of the "normal" daggers of Arabia such as Khanjar etc are not at issue here. Regards Stu

14th June 2010, 08:48 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once. My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law. We have already defined it. In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies. I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests. For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.