Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Very interesting discussion but I must stress that in Persian the word "KARD/KARUD" simply means knife... OF ANY TYPE.

The same way the word "SHAMSHIR" means sword... of any type.

Or the same way the word "KILIJ" in Turkish means sword ... of any type.

Or the same way the word "BICHAK" in Turkish means knife... of any type.

Yet, it were the European researchers/collectors/scholars who associated all these generic local names to very specific types of weapons.

Whether this happened because of a missunderstanding of the local language or because of a deliberate decission is relevant mainly for the scholar and scientific accuracy. For us, as collectors, is more important to have clear and precise terms to accurately describe each type of weapon.

Since there is NO ethnographically and linguistically correct term to describe precisely the straight-bladed Pesh-kabz, I believe we are perfectly justified to use the term "KARUD" to describe it, even if it may be ethnographically and linguistically incorrect.

I think this is a good, precise description of the discussion here. I would think that using an accepted and known name for this type of dagger, whether you think it is a variation of the pesh-kabz or a similar but completely separate type is a good thing, people who accept and use "karud" are on the same page when discussing these weapons. As for a any publications, why not explain the controversy about the name, then people will have a well rounded knowledge of the items history.

[ariel]

Eric,

It seems to me that finally you have actually read my posts. This is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning.

Good job.

[Ian]

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ian

... I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary....

Absolutely, Ian.

Originally Posted by Ian

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated...

And even various spellings among different groups , as one may find in his own people ... and dictionary.

Originally Posted by Ian

... Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided...

What an excelent approach; not only for this specific case but for all of similar nature.

Originally Posted by Ian

...What's in a name?...

Or how you decide to deal with it .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've watched this discussion unfold in a manner similar to previous issues of nomenclature. Each time we arrive at a consistent set of themes--the collector who wants precision mainly for cataloging purposes, and the collector with broader ethnographic and cultural interests who wants to understand how we arrived at a particular name for a specific weapon. I would suggest that these are not necessarily competing approaches, but rather complementary.

The early descriptions of cultural items by Western authors were often incorrect. Sometimes the items had various names in the original culture which makes their description more complicated.

In this case, Ariel has made a strong case that the word karud is actually a misidentification of the Persian word kard. Perhaps if the early Western scribes had written the word they heard as kar'd—with the apostrophe representing the short, soft vowel in the spoken form—then this confusion would have been avoided. However, we are left with the word karud that has now found general acceptance in the collectors' lexicon, and we are unlikely to expunge it.

Some of you have pointed to other examples where a general term meaning "knife" has been applied more specifically to certain weapon forms. I would add to this list the Philippine words bolo, itak, and sundang, each of which are generic words for "knife" but have taken on more or less specificity according to where the term is used.

Slight differences in pronunciation in the local cultures also contribute to confusion. For example, the familiar Moro barong (with a short "o") is also pronounced barung (where the "u" is pronounced as a long "oo", as in moot) in some areas of the southern Phlippines. I use the less familiar spelling when describing the weapon because this avoids confusion with the barong tagalog, which is a shirt commonly worn by Filipinos.

I'm sure this is not the last time we will be discussing terms for weapons and coming across the errors of the past. Each time we go through this exercise I think it's important to ask, what are we trying to achieve in terms of clarity of description?

What's in a name?

Ian.

Absolutely perfectly reasoned and eloquently written Ian, and well describing what most of us are trying to establish, the parameters that surround properly describing ethnographic and historical arms and armor forms.

As has been noted, the monumental work by George Cameron Stone in 1934 has stood ever since as the cornerstone (with its heft almost literally) in the world of arms study for both scholars and collectors. I think it has long been wished that an updated version could be accomplished, and there have been numbers of attempts in degree. Even Herculean falls short of illustrating the huge challenge in achieving such a task.

As Eric has noted, the problem in researching, compiling and writing a book even on a single often limited field or form is difficult as there are constantly new examples, material and more accurate perspectives arising. This is because of, thankfully, our cadre of enthusiasts in the study of arms and armor, constantly probing, investigating, evaluating, discovering...and this is part of the fiber of the passion of collectors in our chosen fields.

I think Lofty has well expressed the circumstances involved in the study and the struggle to more accurately describe and understand the many conflicts and nuances which arise in the progression of research.
There is indeed a considerable spectrum in the character of collectors, who well augment the necessary examples and evidence required by scholars who are deeply involved in such research. I think Fernando has astutely observed (coincidentally in the theme of this discussion) the misfortune of a word or term inadvertently placed in an otherwise beautifully explained text.

I think the term 'hoarder' is probably a bit strong, however it does apply to the character in some cases of some who strive to collect impressively, focusing less on the history, details and background of items they amass. What they seek is an impressive and concisely worded description which will be resounding in the volume of examples proudly exhibited in carefully organized categorization.
While this type of collector is quite different than most, it should be recognized that they are characteristically with somewhat different ajenda and goals than others in many ways.
To our benefit, these individuals by sheer volume often turn up key examples which provide valuable evidence as they are proudly displayed.

To be fair, a 'hoarder' is one who amasses things in huge volume but usually secretively and without specific purpose. A collector who amasses often huge volumes of arms and does not exhibit specific interest in their history in depth, is simply a collector, rather than a historian.

Conversely, I personally do not collect any longer, and am a historian, who deeply appreciates the opportunities to view, study and discuss the amazing spectrum of arms here, and shared by those who DO collect, regardless of WHY.

[fernando]

A gentle approach to the hoarder term, both with and without a connotation tone; gentle as you usually are, Jim. But allow me to add a humble note to the collector categorization, as an apendix to the implicit subject.
Collectors, to be collectors, do not have to follow any specific tendency. There are those who enjoy learning how the weapon was used, in what context, their origin, what would be their date, that is, the quantity of juice they chose to squeeze out of available data, easily or intensively (re)searched, depending on each one's disposition; however not necessarily interested, as an allien example, in what is the composition of metal each weapon is composed with, to the extent of studying the temperature at which its material melts ... if i make myself understood. Nonetheless collectors still they are. Let us make sure that collectors out there who are not interested in ultimate academic details are not as vulgar as hoarders; they simply might not take it so flattery .

[Ian]

Fernando, I agree. Those who collect large numbers of weapons are not to be condemned for their passion and resources. I have no problem with people who collect in such a way, as long as they are not driving up the prices to where I cannot afford good quality items any more.

Eventually large collections are broken up, and that benefits us too. As long as the items have been well preserved, large old collections become a valuable source for the rest of us.

[fernando]

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes . In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders .

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Fernando for clarifying and well explaining what I had been trying to say but apparently missed the mark. I was hoping to explain that 'hoarder' was not a good term to use for collectors who do not necessarily share scholastic or academic endeavors toward them. I thought that by describing their perspective as though often unique and apart from others who seek detailed learning from the weapons, they are still syncretically important in our community as they often acquire important examples amidst their volume which we students can learn from.

As Ian has pointed out, the only concern is the driving up of prices by unabashed competition whose only purpose might be acquisition to satisfy an empty hole in the grouping with a key example which has inherent qualities or evidence in a scholastic matter. To deny recognizing that such circumstances or individuals exist whether with'collectors', 'dealers', investors or opportunists would be naive.

As I explained, we all have different approaches to collecting or studying, and for me personally, I have never understood metallurgy and scientific analysis on weapons, nor have I interest in martial aspects. Despite not being interested in these aspects, I very much admire those who excel in these areas and try (key word) to follow their entries.

The good thing is that here we have deviated a little from linguistics into philosophy here!!! Who says that the study of arms (hoplology for the wordsmiths) does not fit into the academic curriculum in humanities!!!??
As always, I learn a lot here and hope others do as well.

[Royston]

Originally Posted by fernando

... Not to say that the concept of large is rather subjective; a small collection having to fit into a three bedroomed flat is a large collection at the owner wife's eyes . In any case some museums, with their miserable faulty info, would be top hoarders .

A few years ago I was allowed into the basement of a museum with the curator. I could not believe the amount of items that were stored there. Items which any collector would be dribbling over. There was no room to display these things and they could not be sold or even swapped as almost all of them had been gifted and had to remain the property of the museum. This was a small county museum in England, god knows what is hidden away in the large museums of the world, never to see the light of day.

Roy