Kopis/khopsh etc. - Egyptian swords

[ariel]

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history, whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.
Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle....
There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek, that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...". There is already another internet place where such arguments are hotly debated, with Alexander being the villain and barbarian who destroyed a mighty, cultured, humanistic and generally idyllic Persian culture. Nothing good comes from these arguments, guys, except mutual accusations of cultural insensitivity.
Can we concentrate on the swords? Do Yataghan and Kora descend from the Greek Macedonian Kopis? Was there a reverse migration of the recurved blade back to Asia Minor? Sosun Pattah, anyone? Where does Falcatta fit here? Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

[Yannis]

I copied this photo from the old forum. Thanks to Artzi we had a graphical explanation of the evolution of kopis.

The full topic is here: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002313.html

Alexander was not my ancestor, I was born in south Greece

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by ariel

Tom is subscribing to the Marxist view of history,


No, Tom is subscribing to his own view of history; Tom is fairly unfamiliar with Marx, actually. Tom finds other peoples' philosophy usually makes boring reading......


whereby everything is driven by suprahuman (economic) necessity



A meme/paradigm is not by any means neccessarily economic; individuals and peoples often do uneconomic things, because there are more reasons and drives in our lives than that. The simplest name for the concept of societies/social institutions behaving as wholes/organisms rather independantly of their individual members, much as "you" are independant from being ruled by each of your cells; even an important brain cell, is "sociology". It's all around us. It's very real. And when people are not conscious of it they tend very strongly to be ruled by it.


and the individual leader is just somebody who was there at the right place and in the right time. A marionette of objective historical forces, so to speak.


Yes, pretty much. He must, of course, possess the requisite qualities, which are not rare; primarily intelligence and ambition, and perhaps fit a social category of class or descent. Now we've had sociology. Anthropology has a teaching more similar to the great men thing; that the leaders always start wars for their own selfish reasons and lie to the people to justify it. Some anthro. texts will state this as an universal or near-universal truth.


Most of us, especially in the post-Cold War days, would only chuckle...


I consider the disaprobrium of the normal masses a badge of honor; hate to tell you. the great men theory of history is not, to my mind, very well supported by any meaningful evidence, while everything I've seen humans doing all my life supports the sociological view. I believe that "great men" are supreme goer-alongers; men who think and do for themselves often live short, outcast lives, and are rarely remembered by history. To me, these are the real great men. Christ, for instance, was an actually great man who is remembered; Julius Caesar, for instance, was a thug and a manipulator; not anything to look up to in my book. (Please, Itallian friends; do not be offended; there are thugs and manipulators in every country)

BTW, Russia is a poor country. It is an intrinsically poor country; cold and largely landlocked. It had a protracted struggle against a similarly large, but much richer country, and ended up with a collapsed economy. The idea that any of this has anything to do with communism, democracy, etc. is, well, standardized, to say the least (I've been asked to say the least; perhaps appropriately) .......



There is no doubt that Alexander was Greek,



Lots of doubt, actually; tell it to a Bulgarian; tell it to (the former) Yugoslavia; lots and lots of doubt that Alexander in particular or Macedonians in general should be considered Greek. Who's right? Not the point I'm trying to make; my point is there is doubt; there is controversy; very serious international controversy, actually, and a big land dispute. I personally consider it fairly clear that the Macedonians were and are part Greek, part North (and to the north is the border between Slavia and Tartarstan); I actually can't understand why anyone would even question this; it seems fairly obvious and inevitable.


that he was a formidable leader, and that he actively initiated


This is exactly the big question. Exactly; the initiating; a social movement or one arrogant boss? What evidence is there, or indeed, can there be for so long ago? But looking around the modern world we can study examples much more closely, and a close study does much to crush the "great men" theory of history, much as few in power/"success" (as I've said before, and for obvious self-interest reasons) will admit it,often most of all to themselves.



a chain of events that re-shaped the world. I suggest we stop here and now the silly argument " my ancestor was greater than your (his, their, her etc)...".


Was anyone saying those things? Such was not my intent, certainly. None of these people are perceptibly my ancestors, except in the aside/example about Iroquois government, in which I was pointing out that not all things commonly attributed to Ancient (primarily Attic) Greece are unique to it or directly traceable to it; that at least some of these beliefs are more mythic than historical; Ie. modern US government is fairly dis-similar to the oft-creditted Athenian democracy; more similar to Latin republican government, ruled by a council, which is not unusual for a tribe, but the multiple-"house", checks and balances tripartate structure seems closer to Iroquois, the native people of much of the region where American government arose, and who had extensive contact with the Americans in the formative stages of that nation.
It has been in the emotional, and also political interests of the American nation to deny this, and other (American) Indian contributions to technology, philosophy, law, roads, etc. etc. etc. (an interesting book? "Indian Givers" subtitle something like how the Indians of the Americas revolutionized the world), and that's just what's been done. It wasn't done, BTW, by any great man, but by a nation as a whole, and has been by no means entirely conscious. No incivility or insult is intended; this is pretty straightforward history, and no longer contradicted, even by experts.



Where does Falcatta fit here?


Do you view falcatta as seperate from copis?


Why does my beloved Laz Bicaq (Black Sea Yataghan) have a configuration resembling Egyptian Khopesh?

a good question, though one raised previously with no success. At least we found out a little more about these fascinating swords.

[Andrew]

This is a fascinating topic and an interesting thread. However, I have some requests.

First, let's everyone keep this discussion civil. Some posts have been close to the edge in my estimation.

Tom, it would make it much easier to understand your posts (and points) if you were to avoid writing within another's quoted post. Try parsing the quotes, or just post your response seperately. We'll get it.

Thanks,
Andrew

[tom hyle]

You're right, of course.
I'm not really capable of responding to multiple complex points if I'm not looking at them, so while the quotes serve as a guide to the readers of what I'm talking about, they moreso serve as a guide for me, without which I might be much less cogent. I'll try to cut 'em down to basics; don't want to take up all the memory space, if there is such a thing, of this website with repitition. I could probably edit them out entirely once I've written my replies.
I've intended no incivility; I just consider some things hard to swallow; hard to believe just because they've been passed down/stamped with official approval, and hard to accept the way others seem to swallow them whole. I've been around winners and losers. I've seen approval and felt disaproval of those who claim authority, and by no means have I found these things to be universally based on merit.
I'll say a general thing, if I may on the subject of merit and meritocracy, which I think bears some relevance in broad social terms. Every stratified Human society has been a meritocracy. No one ever said let's put the simple minded or unethical in charge. The only disagreement (and it's vast) is how to determine/identify/define merit.......and the methods are rarely salutary, IMHO.
Therefore, quoting an "expert" to me, or numbers of them, is rarely a very meaningful way to communicate with me: I've been around experts, too ( ).
I do seem to find it difficult to be civil in the face of mockery; please argue with me using reason, rather than sarcasm or societie's (to me) meaningless judgements, if possible.
And I'll try to find a more respectful word for what seems far out unlikely to me than silly..........

[Yannis]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

BTW.......isn't machaira a word for what in US would be called a knife, rather than a sword or dagger, in modern Greek?

In modern greek
machaira=big knife
machairi=knife
kopis={not used but is the etymological root of the following}
kopidi=chisel
kovo=chop down, cut out (verb)
kopsimo=cut
falcata={not used, maybe the root of the following}
faltseta=a curved folding knife (an older word, my father used)
faltsokovo=bevel

Originally Posted by ariel

Where does Falcatta fit here?

I have the idea (nothing official) that the difference between kopis and falchata is that falchata had a knuckleguard. Also I think that falchata was used in Italian and Iberian greek colonies than mainland and Ionia, but I cant find any reference. Maybe a Spanish or Italian friend here can check etymology or references.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

lots and lots of doubt that Alexander in particular or Macedonians in general should be considered Greek?

Fifty years ago there were no doubts at all. Now there are, mainly for political reasons, I can’t explain in this forum. But according to ancient sources Macedonians were speaking a greek dialect and they worship the same greek gods. If this is not enough, check their names: Phillip = “He loves horses” (a greek name), Alexander = “Men protector” (a greek name). Actually ancient Greeks like American Indians had names they were carrying a meaning.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

and to the north is the border between Slavia and Tartarstan

Slavia is a later name, Slavs arrived in Balkans in 6th century A.D.
What Tartastan has to do here???? It is thousand miles north east. Also Tartars is a very late population that never established in the area.

[Yannis]

Originally Posted by Andrew

First, let's everyone keep this discussion civil. Some posts have been close to the edge in my estimation.

Andrew, I think that I am in the lines. I really try to respect forum rules. If you think you must lock the topic, please, be sure that ALL offensive words will leave.

“You have the knife and you have the melon” says a greek proverb, meaning that you have the power to do what you like. I don’t question that. I just say that last time I had a bitter taste

[Kamil]

Hi,
if any of my words seemed crude, it was not my intention and I apologize for them.
Tom,
the spelling is not from the province of Egypt. First, it is not possible to discern dialects in ancient Egyptian language, apart from few words and the Coptic language which is relatively late (AD, not BC; and Copts did not use khepesh). The word khepesh is known from official inscriptions that were written in a literary style.
Concerning your earlier remark, I've never heard about stone-bladed khepesh. It seems rather impossible to me, as the Egyptians used copper and bronze tools since a long time when they learned khepesh; moreover, manufacturing of such relatively long, thin and curved blade of stone would be extremely difficult. Such stone blade does not seem to be useful in fight also... The Egyptians used stone knives, of course, but rather for ritual purposes (I mean in the dynastic period), eg. the flint knife used in the mummification process or purely symbolic, Y-shaped pesesh-kaf knife.

[tom hyle]

Slavia is a later name, Slavs arrived in Balkans in 6th century A.D.
What Tartastan has to do here???? It is thousand miles north east. Also Tartars is a very late population that never established in the area.[/QUOTE]

I am construing the term Tartar, as I always do, and have explained and justified exhaustively many times, much more broadly than that. Scythians (which I also tend to construe more widely than the kingdom of that name, much as with Sudan) were for instance a proto-Tartar related people (yeah, I get tired of writing the proto, OK?). Tartar is not a racial term. It is cultural and arguably linguistic (there is a Tartar or "Turkic" language group, but not speaking it doesn't make someone who has a lot of other Tartar traits a nonTartar, neccessarily). The Eurasian steppes, and arguably their frontiers, are Tartarstan. in my book, and in a lot of old maps and writings, too.
Thanks for the Greek words; they might be helpful.
Fifty years ago there were no doubts at all about a lot of things; some of them have even been PROVEN wrong. The older belief can as easily be political or otherwise wrong as the new one. The language is a meaningful point, but does not address other factors of Norhern/plains influence. Just as I was saying about Americans; they speak English, but they are not English, and much in their culture (largely unacknowledgedly) is American Indian......Everyone all around was worshipping the same gods, BTW, with minor variations, mostly in name. Actually, I find animism (which broadly construed includes both the structured ancient Mediterranean religions, and for instance, "Hinduism") to be pretty universal and startlingly homogenous in many ways. The idea that each animist culture has/had its own religion is not entirely valid; to me they all have/had the same religion. This is not even a very controversial idea when applied to IndoEuropeans; though spreading it worldwide typically raises eyebrows.
I don't think you're right about the knucklebow; I think the name falcatta is a regional/tribal thing, and the knucklebow an occasional (and very oddly not passed down; humans rarely let go of an invention that way.) variation, seen perhaps only on falcatta, but not always.

BTW, I was reading the forum guidelines, and I think they are unrealistic. It is impossible to have a meaningful or useful discussion of the evolution and travel of weapon forms without discussing the politics, philosophy, religion, etc. of the peoples involved; quite impossible; this whole thread could not exist if we tightly constued those guidelines. The important thing, I would say, is to try extra hard to not be offensive about these sensitive matters.....I try, perhaps not always successfully to be unemotionally historical/logical about these things, but it often seems that is not enough to prevent offense.

[tom hyle]

Stone edged swords are typically made of wood, antler, etc. Thus with the one in my shady memory (the main problem is that it is a memory of a drawing, with possibly multiple interpretations). They are a widespread artifact of the past.
I'm not sure, Kamil, what you're trying to say; I don't think I'm following you. You tell me the spellings are from Egypt, then that they're not, then that they are? Perhaps you are objecting to me calling Egypt a province? Or perhaps you didn't understand that that's what I was doing? Province, country; I wasn't being technical enough, I suppose, but I didn't want to raise the idea of nationalisma again. Provincialism per se is only nationalism writ small though.....and it is exactly the attitude that breeds the ignorance whereby one small area can claim to have the "correct spelling" (for instance) of a widespread word that is spelled variously in various regions, an idea which, quite understandably, can be offensive and disrespectful to the people of those regions, as well as being factually/logically false. (because what makes one tribe's spelling more correct than anothers? Usually the determining factor is which tribe the speaker comes from or has made a special study of....)

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

BTW, I was reading the forum guidelines, and I think they are unrealistic. It is impossible to have a meaningful or useful discussion of the evolution and travel of weapon forms without discussing the politics, philosophy, religion, etc. of the peoples involved; quite impossible; this whole thread could not exist if we tightly constued those guidelines.

It really isn't that hard.

The important thing, I would say, is to try extra hard to not be offensive about these sensitive matters.....I try, perhaps not always successfully to be unemotionally historical/logical about these things, but it often seems that is not enough to prevent offense.

Precisely. Thanks.