WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD?

kahnjar1 · 13th June 2010, 09:16 AM

Here is one for the Jambiya collectors to decide. When does a Jambiya become a sword?
I came across this pic, and judging by the comparison of the blade with the man, the blade must be at least 24" long......... so is it a sword or is it a dagger?

kronckew · 13th June 2010, 11:27 AM

i generally think of a blade as a knife up to about 12" blade length, 12->19 or 20 is a short sword, over 20 is a sword. if they are near the transition points, it becomes a lot more subjective.

Devadatta · 13th June 2010, 12:39 PM

I think it's impossible to measure from american/european point of view

Here we have kinjals from Caucasus, some of them can be really HUGE, still they're counted as "daggers" not as "swords"

Devadatta · 13th June 2010, 12:48 PM

Some time ago I was thinking on a similar question: what a flyssa is according to well-known european definitions? Mainly long pieces can be obviously considered as "swords", but there are also plenty of short-ones of the same forms, they can be called "daggers". But I think that finally a flyssa is a flyssa, and not anything else. So at the same time a jambiya is a jambiya.

kronckew · 13th June 2010, 01:37 PM

yes, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

what we call them is by and large a western conceit born from a romano-germanic need to measure, classify, correlate and codify everything.

reminds me of the term 'falcata' coined by a victorian englishman to designate the spanish form of sword he wished to differentiate from the greek kopis, in spite of the fact that spain had been settled by eastern mediterranean peoples who had been very familiar with the kopis and it's variants. if you spoke to a native in spain who was from their period, or even later, falcata would be a unknown foreign word.

the term the people who used these weapons used is more appropriate, but in likelyhood, like dha, just means 'knife' in whatever size they are. it is us westerners and particularly us collectors that need to further break them down and group them into sword length dha, knife length dha, short-sword length dha, etc. where the locals would likely just call them a long dha or a short dha. even flyssa is more a term for the tribe than the weapon, more properly a(n) (e)flyssan knife/sword/weapon.

semantics can be so confusing. so can transliteration of local non european languages and terms into our roman based alphabets.

it all boils down to using terms that communicate meaning between all of us from all the unique backgrounds we come from here. a hard task at best.

Rick · 13th June 2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Some time ago I was thinking on a similar question: what a flyssa is according to well-known european definitions? Mainly long pieces can be obviously considered as "swords", but there are also plenty of short-ones of the same forms, they can be called "daggers". But I think that finally a flyssa is a flyssa, and not anything else. So at the same time a jambiya is a jambiya.

I wonder if the term/name 'Flyssa' is more a definition of a certain groups' weapons than a definitive term as regards their individual dimensions ...

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I think it's impossible to measure from american/european point of view

Here we have kinjals from Caucasus, some of them can be really HUGE, still they're counted as "daggers" not as "swords"

If not mistaken, it seems that many of these large 'kindjhal' type weapons are termed 'qama', as cited in both western references as well as the catalog from an Arabian exhibition in Riyadh I have noted (1991). While the term qama is used with daggers, it seems that the term applies equally to the larger sword size (Ive seen them up to over 30" blades) as well as the daggers.

It seems also that a single edged curved bladed example is termed 'bebut'.

Best regards,
Jim

Atlantia · 13th June 2010, 05:36 PM

An intersting topic, and great picture Stu.

I agree that it's our western taste to try and label these weapon forms into 'armoury inventory categories'.
But I also do think that's somewhat helpful. Especially from a collecting POV.

For me these long examples are most definately short swords, and I think for purposes of classification they should be sub-categorised.

Using the one in the picture as an example.
I can't see that it could be correct to describe it as a dsgger simply because it is an oversized version of a recognised dagger form.
For me, any Jambiya of the size of the one in that picture is a Jambiya-short sword.
The point of discussion for me, is as your question, where the lines of division lay.
In this case, I'd say somewhere like:
up to 14" overall length - Dagger
14"-18" - Large/very large dagger
18"-22"- Small short-sword
22" - Short-sword

The chap in the picture is using that in concert with a buckler as well.

But I'd like to add, what about a huge two handed Kukri?

fearn · 14th June 2010, 12:34 AM

You know, the first time I saw that "sword vs. dagger" rule was in Dungeons and Dragons as a kid, and I'm still not sure where it came from.

It's arbitrary.

A jambiya is a jambiya is a jambiya. Just as a four-foot long khukuri (the longest I'm seen) is still a khukuri.

If you want a guidance about when a dagger or knife is a "sword," I made up a rule called "the chop test." Basically, daggers are too light in the tip to chop effectively, and they tend to be used to slice or stab. If a blade is long enough for an effective chop, you can start thinking about it as a sword.

Obviously, my little kitchen cleaver isn't a sword, so this rule really only works on blades that are "sword shaped." In general, sword blades are more lightly built than knife blades, due to simple physics (see next paragraph). You use swords a bit differently than you do knives, and if you chop with them, it does something worthwhile. This arbitrary rule helps sort out when you can use something like a sword, and when you can use it only like a dagger. The break point is somewhere between 1 and 2 feet long, depending on blade shape.

Physics? Sure, blade weight scales as the cube of the length, and it's really not worth using something that weighs more than about 2-3 pounds. Therefore, if you want a long blade, you need to make it thinner. Therefore, swords tend to be built more lightly than a dagger of the same silhouette.

My 0.002^3 cents,

F

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 01:38 AM

Trying to place a finite classification like this on ethnographic weapons is a challenge at best. It seems terminology has often confounded the study of weapons, especially in tracking thier development as the terms used in so many contemporary accounts and narratives can present false leads.

As Emanuel has shown in much of the excellent research he has done on the 'flyssa', in this case the term can apply indiscriminately to virtually the entire range of edged weapons associated with this regional form. The term itself refers to the Ifflissen tribal confederation of the Kabyles, a Berber people of Northern Algeria. The tribe was considered the predominant armourers producing these weapons, as noted by the French c.1830s.
It would be interesting to determine what term is applied locally to the variations of these, but to collectors they are all 'flyssa' regardless of length.

As has been noted, the janbiyya in Arabia can reach rather large size as with the Wabbhi versions in the Hejaz and Yemen, which I believe are 'sabaki' and varying terms according to region. Though they are essentially of a size like a short sword, a sword would be a sa'if, while the other term does not otherwise specify.
In other parts of Arabia the term janbiyya is used for daggers in some regions while in others the term khanjhar in used. Interestingly the term khanjhar is linguistically the root of the term hanger, which as we know is actually often describing a short sword.

Elgood has described the misuse of the term 'nimcha' in describing the full size sa'if of Morocco by noting that in Arabic the term actually means 'short sword'. It is generally accepted in that in most Arabic speaking regions the sword is referred to generally as sa'if.

In Afghanistan the often huge Khyber knife is clearly anything but a 'knife' and also termed a 'Salawar yataghan'.....while it is clearly not a yataghan by generally held definition.

As Fearn notes, kukris regardless of the widely varying size are still considered kukris.

I would say that ethnographically and particularly linguistically, most edged weapons are described in somewhat general terms, thier function more important than classification, as noted a western preoccupation.

Transliteration and semantics haved also played an important part in establishing the now generally held nomenclature used among the collecting community of edged weapons.

A. G. Maisey · 14th June 2010, 05:10 AM

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material

It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem.

The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:-

Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956.

Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets):
(a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and
(b) having:
(i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or
(ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and
(c) made of any material

It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm.

If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.

The above is noted, but the subject of importation laws was discussed at some length in a previous post. The subject here relates to Jambiya and their length> I am pleased that the post has generated discussion as there seems to have been, (APART FROM IN A FEW CASES), a lack of response to posts lately. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has contact with the Middle East, and who can give us some insight regarding the names used for these in that area. Is there a different name used for regular size jambiya and those which are verging on sword size.

Stu

13th June 2010, 09:16 AM	#1
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,739	WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD? Here is one for the Jambiya collectors to decide. When does a Jambiya become a sword? I came across this pic, and judging by the comparison of the blade with the man, the blade must be at least 24" long......... so is it a sword or is it a dagger? Attached Images

13th June 2010, 01:37 PM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,183	yes, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. what we call them is by and large a western conceit born from a romano-germanic need to measure, classify, correlate and codify everything. reminds me of the term 'falcata' coined by a victorian englishman to designate the spanish form of sword he wished to differentiate from the greek kopis, in spite of the fact that spain had been settled by eastern mediterranean peoples who had been very familiar with the kopis and it's variants. if you spoke to a native in spain who was from their period, or even later, falcata would be a unknown foreign word. the term the people who used these weapons used is more appropriate, but in likelyhood, like dha, just means 'knife' in whatever size they are. it is us westerners and particularly us collectors that need to further break them down and group them into sword length dha, knife length dha, short-sword length dha, etc. where the locals would likely just call them a long dha or a short dha. even flyssa is more a term for the tribe than the weapon, more properly a(n) (e)flyssan knife/sword/weapon. semantics can be so confusing. so can transliteration of local non european languages and terms into our roman based alphabets. it all boils down to using terms that communicate meaning between all of us from all the unique backgrounds we come from here. a hard task at best. Last edited by kronckew; 13th June 2010 at 01:51 PM.

14th June 2010, 12:34 AM	#9
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	You know, the first time I saw that "sword vs. dagger" rule was in Dungeons and Dragons as a kid, and I'm still not sure where it came from. It's arbitrary. A jambiya is a jambiya is a jambiya. Just as a four-foot long khukuri (the longest I'm seen) is still a khukuri. If you want a guidance about when a dagger or knife is a "sword," I made up a rule called "the chop test." Basically, daggers are too light in the tip to chop effectively, and they tend to be used to slice or stab. If a blade is long enough for an effective chop, you can start thinking about it as a sword. Obviously, my little kitchen cleaver isn't a sword, so this rule really only works on blades that are "sword shaped." In general, sword blades are more lightly built than knife blades, due to simple physics (see next paragraph). You use swords a bit differently than you do knives, and if you chop with them, it does something worthwhile. This arbitrary rule helps sort out when you can use something like a sword, and when you can use it only like a dagger. The break point is somewhere between 1 and 2 feet long, depending on blade shape. Physics? Sure, blade weight scales as the cube of the length, and it's really not worth using something that weighs more than about 2-3 pounds. Therefore, if you want a long blade, you need to make it thinner. Therefore, swords tend to be built more lightly than a dagger of the same silhouette. My 0.002^3 cents, F Last edited by fearn; 14th June 2010 at 01:56 AM. Reason: clarification

13th June 2010, 11:27 AM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,183	i generally think of a blade as a knife up to about 12" blade length, 12->19 or 20 is a short sword, over 20 is a sword. if they are near the transition points, it becomes a lot more subjective.

13th June 2010, 12:39 PM	#3
Devadatta Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 118	I think it's impossible to measure from american/european point of view Here we have kinjals from Caucasus, some of them can be really HUGE, still they're counted as "daggers" not as "swords"

13th June 2010, 12:48 PM	#4
Devadatta Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 118	Some time ago I was thinking on a similar question: what a flyssa is according to well-known european definitions? Mainly long pieces can be obviously considered as "swords", but there are also plenty of short-ones of the same forms, they can be called "daggers". But I think that finally a flyssa is a flyssa, and not anything else. So at the same time a jambiya is a jambiya.

13th June 2010, 05:36 PM	#8
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	An intersting topic, and great picture Stu. I agree that it's our western taste to try and label these weapon forms into 'armoury inventory categories'. But I also do think that's somewhat helpful. Especially from a collecting POV. For me these long examples are most definately short swords, and I think for purposes of classification they should be sub-categorised. Using the one in the picture as an example. I can't see that it could be correct to describe it as a dsgger simply because it is an oversized version of a recognised dagger form. For me, any Jambiya of the size of the one in that picture is a Jambiya-short sword. The point of discussion for me, is as your question, where the lines of division lay. In this case, I'd say somewhere like: up to 14" overall length - Dagger 14"-18" - Large/very large dagger 18"-22"- Small short-sword 22" - Short-sword The chap in the picture is using that in concert with a buckler as well. But I'd like to add, what about a huge two handed Kukri?

14th June 2010, 01:38 AM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Trying to place a finite classification like this on ethnographic weapons is a challenge at best. It seems terminology has often confounded the study of weapons, especially in tracking thier development as the terms used in so many contemporary accounts and narratives can present false leads. As Emanuel has shown in much of the excellent research he has done on the 'flyssa', in this case the term can apply indiscriminately to virtually the entire range of edged weapons associated with this regional form. The term itself refers to the Ifflissen tribal confederation of the Kabyles, a Berber people of Northern Algeria. The tribe was considered the predominant armourers producing these weapons, as noted by the French c.1830s. It would be interesting to determine what term is applied locally to the variations of these, but to collectors they are all 'flyssa' regardless of length. As has been noted, the janbiyya in Arabia can reach rather large size as with the Wabbhi versions in the Hejaz and Yemen, which I believe are 'sabaki' and varying terms according to region. Though they are essentially of a size like a short sword, a sword would be a sa'if, while the other term does not otherwise specify. In other parts of Arabia the term janbiyya is used for daggers in some regions while in others the term khanjhar in used. Interestingly the term khanjhar is linguistically the root of the term hanger, which as we know is actually often describing a short sword. Elgood has described the misuse of the term 'nimcha' in describing the full size sa'if of Morocco by noting that in Arabic the term actually means 'short sword'. It is generally accepted in that in most Arabic speaking regions the sword is referred to generally as sa'if. In Afghanistan the often huge Khyber knife is clearly anything but a 'knife' and also termed a 'Salawar yataghan'.....while it is clearly not a yataghan by generally held definition. As Fearn notes, kukris regardless of the widely varying size are still considered kukris. I would say that ethnographically and particularly linguistically, most edged weapons are described in somewhat general terms, thier function more important than classification, as noted a western preoccupation. Transliteration and semantics haved also played an important part in establishing the now generally held nomenclature used among the collecting community of edged weapons.

14th June 2010, 05:10 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Here in the Land of Oz we simply do not have this problem. The bureaucrats of the Australian Customs Service, whom we all know are academically trained in matters of weaponry, have, in concert with the Police Services of all Australian states, determined that a dagger is an implement that exceeds 40cm. (15.75") in length and fufils the following conditions:- Schedule 2, Item 9, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, 1956. Daggers or similar devices, being sharp pointed stabbing instruments (not including swords or bayonets): (a) ordinarily capable of concealment on the person; and (b) having: (i) a flat blade with cutting edges (serrated or not serrated) along the length of both sides; or (ii) a needle-like blade, the cross section of which is elliptical or has three or more sides; and (c) made of any material It should be noted that the 40cm. figure is only a guideline, under some circumstances an item which fulfilled the requirements of the schedule quoted might still be classified as a dagger, even though it was longer than 40cm. If in doubt, ask a bureaucrat, they have an answer for everything.