Another Puukko (I think ?)

[Jussi M.]

Well Rob,

a leuku is a puukko from where I look at it and where I grew up - as most Finnish men of my age circa 40 years - being surrounded by them and was taught how to use it as a little kid by my now deceased grandfather. - A common story here.

In my opinion you cant really draw a specific line on what´s a Saami knife or what is a Northern Finnish knife as the styles and indeed the whole cultures between the ethnic groups have been mixing for a long time. So, somebody who argues that a knife is a 100% Sami knife may have a different perception from someone other of what actually makes a knife a Sami knife and what doesnt

It is difficult to discuss what something should be named before there is a joint understanding of what the discussion is all about in the first place. So please Rob, could you describe what is a Saami knife and what makes it so different from a Northern Finnish Leuku?

I just have a feeling that we might just have a slightly different perception here, thats all. Maybe David got it best:

Originally Posted by David

I say we just call it a sundang and be done with it!

Thanks,

Jussi

[RobT]

Hi Jussi M,
Sorry for not getting back to you more promptly. Page 24 of the Knives of Finland by Lester C Ristinen shows a set of three knives captioned, "Knives of Lappland by Lauri Tuoteet". These, although of recent manufacture, illustrate features I consider to be Saami rather than Finnish. The lower portion of the sheath is reindeer and has a pronounced bend to it. The hilt is also reindeer and is without a ferrule. In cross section the hilt is oval and it tapers slightly from the flat pommel to the blade. Both the hilt and the lower portion of the sheath are decorated with incised designs. The upper portion of the sheath is leather, tapered slightly to accept the hilt. I haven't provided the picture because I don't have permission to use it.
Sincerely,
RobT

[A. G. Maisey]

I have heard and seen this discussion many, many times.

But usually the subject matter is some cutting implement from South East Asia.

Over the years I have come to think of this obsession with classification as "The Name Game".

In my own field of keris and SE Asian weaponry I have long opted for the use of English names for things where an English name can be used, and where I am using English. Most especially do I endorse this approach for those things which are foreign to the person I am in discussion with. If I am in discussion with somebody in Indonesia I will use the Indonesian terms, and if I am in discussion with somebody in Jawa, a part of Indonesia, I will use the Javanese terms. If I am in discussion with somebody in Australia I will use the English terms.

I really do not understand why it should be necessary to use a foreign word to describe something when there is a perfectly good English word that will do the same job.

However, if we do wish to classify a knife, or any other object, from a foreign source, I believe that some care should be taken in so doing. Thus, a classificatory approach could be, for example :- a knife, probably from the Kauhava region of Finland and commonly referred to in that place as a puukko. In the case of a written record, this classification should be dated, and if available, a reference for the classification given.

In normal English language discussion such a knife could be referred to as a "Finnish knife".

I have often heard the counter argument put that we should use the correct name from point of origin, even though we are speaking, or writing, in English, but what legitimacy is there to using the "correct" native name, when as English speakers we can neither pronounce the word correctly, nor understand the cultural connotations that are attached to the word? To us, it is a knife. Just that.