Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
Of course there might be certain reasons that this came about, but those reasons might not necessarily be correct.
Maybe you could care to explain what those reasons are so that even me and Alex could learn and understand?!
Maybe you, or anyone else can explain why the very same blade is called Shamshir whether it has the classic Persian hilt or the disc-shaped Indian Tulwar hilt, but it is called Kilij when it has the Turkish pistol-type hilt?!
For me, this is a classic example of inconsistency and lack of clear rules.
And as long as I don't have a better logical and argumented explanation, I would rather consider my oppinion to be better.
|
In your post #11, you posted a query asking what determines the name or classification for a sword type.
It is a fair question, as I indicated in my response in #13, and I thought I offered a fair explanation. Either you did not see it or did not consider it to be a valid perspective, so I can see you consider the opinions you dictate here as absolute yet at the same time you observe that none of us ( even DR. Khorasani) holds the 'absolute truth', which is of course fairly put.
Your statement does however seem perplexing as I am wondering how the dilemma of 'absolute truth' can be arrived at in discussing an entirely subjective phenomenon which is inherently varied through so many variables and circumstances.
I am in accord with your observation, 'discussing' does provide opportunities for learning , but would add as long as the participants are willing to keep open minds in evaluating exchanged data and views. Often only elements of one presentation might present acceptable alternative, while others might be more comprehensive with proper support. When dealing with opinions it becomes far more difficult, especially when regard for others engaged is less than pertinent.
I would offer here the words of Mr. Philip Rawson, who you might find as of standing as an acceptable authority,
"...with regard to the names here adopted for the different types of sword it must be said at once that they are to a large extent ARBITRARY. There prevails amongst ALL the authorities such an extraordinary confusion of nomenclature that I have been obliged to adopt a system based on a rough statistical estimate of the frequency of recorded applications. Some of the names could be said to mean 'sword' in general, if regard were paid to their every occurrence."
Here Rawson further notes that due to the fact that hilts are "...classified on basis of local distribution", therefore he uses the blades primarily in his classification.
"The Indian Sword", Philip Rawson, Copenhagen, 1967, p.vi. intro.
G,N. Pant in his "Indian Arms and Armour", Lahore, 1980, differs entirely with Rawson and notes numerous conflicts in terms etc. most notably using hilts to determine his classifications and terminology .
So it is throughout the corpus of literature on Indian arms as well as with similar confusion (as well noted by Rawson, op.cit) on many if not most ethnographic forms. Some weapons have many terms applied. I recall working on Indonesian weapon terminology, and was told by a well known author that in many cases the 'name of a weapon varied almost by villages.
In my post (#13), I noted the key words, 'it depends'....... and it seems that most authorities and seasoned collectors and scholars would agree, to the point of consensus, that this is the case with terminology.....there are no 'rules' which may be considered definitive.
Perhaps while holding to your own definitions, you might recognize that this dilemma is something most of us who have been studying these subjects many years well realize, and use qualifying measures rather than restrictive to refer to items in question.