Shamshir identification

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

In my opinion too, this is not a shamshir but a saif. But since names are rather relative, you can take this as you want.

In my opinion a shamshir has a long, narrow and very deeply curved blade of mostly triangular cross-section.

In societies with significant Persian influence it would be called " shamshir"
In those with Arabic influence it would be called " saif"

Just like Yemeni and Omani daggers: even though they are almost indistinguishable, in Yemen they are " Janbias", in Oman they are " Khanjars". Thus, since this saber is obviously Omani ( braided silver wire) , it must have been called " shamshir" locally. Having been captured by a Yemeni fighter, it became a " saif", and when it was sold to a Turkish Agha, it became a " kilij":-)))


In Persia, any sword, - straight , curved, local blade, foreign blade, - is still a " shamshir". In Afghanistan there are no pulwars or pseudo-shashkas: all of them are " shamshirs".

In Russian there is no special word for "fighting" short-bladed weapons i.e. what in English is called a " dagger". So, they took a Georgian word for their national dagger, "khanjali", modified it to "kindjal" and since then every short-bladed weapon in Russian is just " kindjal". Kindjal- jambiya, kindjal- tanto, kindjal- kris, and even kindjal- kindjal:-) That is how they are often defined in catalogues and even academic books.

This is a Name Game of the lowest sort....

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

This is a Name Game of the lowest sort....

Hello Ariel,

You may have noticed that I specified "in my opinion"...

And yes, I am aware of the name variations but I am also aware that at least some of us can be a little more specific by consistently using specific names for specific swords.

We are neither Turkish to call all swords kiliç, nor Persians to call them shamshirs, but we are international collectors and can use more specific terms for clarity.

[Peter Hudson]

I did some work at http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread...t=omani+swords on Omani Shamshiir The silver sword knot looks like typical to Omani style but looking at the scabbard it seems to be a replacement...and theres very little other silver work of Omani style on the weapon thus difficult to place. At reference I placed the Omani Shamshiir presented to Henry Morton Stanley by Sultan Bargash for comparison...
Regards Peter Hudson

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Ariel,

You may have noticed that I specified "in my opinion"...

And yes, I am aware of the name variations but I am also aware that at least some of us can be a little more specific by consistently using specific names for specific swords.

We are neither Turkish to call all swords kiliç, nor Persians to call them shamshirs, but we are international collectors and can use more specific terms for clarity.

Nothing was meant to contradict you; if you read it as an attack, I apologize, I did not mean to offend you or anybody. The " Name Game" was specifically addressed to to the " kindjal-tanto" type definitions.

My whole point was that names depend on the language of origin: shamshir, saif and kilic are all translated as "sword" in their respective places of origin and will change depending who wields them or where they were bought. Moreover, we all grew on the Stone's "Glossary" that still is a Bible of collectors, but has some questionable points. Khanda for example was described as a straight sword with rounded and widened point, Old Indian Basket handle and reinforced edges. Well, in the Elgood's Jodhpur book there are quite a few khandas that lack most or all Stone's criteria. I asked him for the reason, and his explanation was simple: these swords existed over hundreds of years in localities with different languages ( even contemporary India has 60 official languages with more than a million speakers each in addition to a multitude of local ones). What was called Khanda in Gujarat not necessarily was regarded as such in Odisha. Bichwa and Baku are the names of the same dagger in different parts of India.
Or take Morocco for example: they have 2 major national weapons, Nimcha and Koummya. Well, locally they are called Saif ( Arabic origin) and Khanjar ( Persian origin).

I am all for calling weapons by their correct names, but linguistic origins do not necessarily coincide with our "Stone- derived" education. Ottoman swords with typical Persian blades were locally called " Kilic adjemi": a mix of a Turkish word for "sword" and acknowledgement of its Persian feature.

Sometimes, a cautious approach is useful: Lebedinsky's term "pseudoshashka" was appropriate , but Lord Elphinstone visiting Afghanistan in the first half of the 19th century specifically noted that locally they were calles "shumsheers". Paintings of the battle between Nader Shah Persians and Afghanis ( 18th century) show that both used guardless sabers and frescos in Western Georgian churches show Georgian aristocrats ( 17th century) carrying real "shashkas". Calling Afghani "pseudo-shashkas" and, especially, guardless sabers from Central Asian Khanates "shashkas" and tracing their origin to Russian Cossacks is against elementary historiography, since there was not a trace of Russian presence in Central Asia at those times. But we still see this word on e-bay, in Russian books and articles.

Again, I am all for using correct names, but sometimes it is difficult because of our ignorance. Robert Elgood collected close to 40,000 entries for different " Oriental" weapons. I hope his future Glossary will correct some of our confused definitions. Just wish he would not limit himself to Indian weapons , but saved couple of thousands of entry cards for the Islamic ones, too:-)

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Nothing was meant to contradict you; if you read it as an attack, I apologize, I did not mean to offend you or anybody. The " Name Game" was specifically addressed to to the " kindjal-tanto" type definitions.

:-)

No worries Ariel! We "know" each other from some time and even when disagreeing I don't think we take it personally. And I quite enjoy a good healthy disagreement from time to time.

I just wanted to clarify a little my position pertaining the name game. Of course we can call every small, single-edged-bladed weapon a "knife," and we would be correct.

However, we can be much more specific and confer much more information by calling each specific single-edged-bladed weapon kard, bichaq, karud (I know you particularly like this one) , choora, lawi ayam, puukko, tanto, etc. And if we do it, we'd rather be consistent.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

. And if we do it, we'd rather be consistent.

I am all for it. As long as the names we use are their native ones and we use them correctly.
And, yes, karud is my pet peeve:-)