Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A.alnakkas
It would be a French made copy of an American car. Just like this style of Khanjar made in the south is a copy of a design originating in AlHasa.
Its interesting to note that people of Asir (and other parts of the south) to a certain point in the early 20th century DID NOT wear this style. Rather, they wore a style locally called Mhaliya, Yemeni styles and dharias. It was adopted later on and became a fashion.
|
That's what I thought, and Im at a disadvantage here as I know next to nothing on khanjhars, though I consider them fascinating ethnographically.
So if a certain style is well known as indigenous or predominant in an area, and becomes known to be produced in another area.......would it then be called to the original term of style...but noted as a product of such and such area?
In my view, it seems too many collectors and others describing weapons are somehow afraid of qualifying or adding pertinent details in their descriptions.
For example.....a such and such style of khanjhar but produced and provenance from /location/.
It does take more effort, and in discussion the same, to properly qualify the variations and mitigating circumstances surrounding examples or forms.
We have long known for example that the so called katar dagger of India is actually known in Indian parlance as jamadhar. Yet through transcribing or other error, the term became displaced. Often, though we know the proper term as jamadhar, we parenthesize 'katar' with it.
In actuality, it is surprising just how much grey area there is within the study of arms and armor, especially ethnographic. It just takes a bit more work to properly describe and classify things.