WHEN DOES A LONG JAMBIYA BECOME A SWORD?

kahnjar1 · 13th June 2010, 08:16 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, 10:27 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, 11:39 AM

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, 11:48 AM

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, 12:37 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, 04:29 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 ...

Atlantia · 13th June 2010, 04:36 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 · 13th June 2010, 11:34 PM

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, 12:38 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, 04:10 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, 05:32 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

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

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

Interesting thoughts Stu, and in recent discussion it seems as I understand, the Australian laws prohibit importation of katars as they are classified as 'push daggers'. Interestingly many of these, particularly from the south in India, are slashing daggers, not push daggers as typically perceived. Much as with the pata, these were used in slashing cuts by the Mahrattas, who detested the thrust.

In Arabia, the familiar janbiyya types are actually termed khanjar in Oman, al Hasa, the Emirates, Muscat and parts of Hadhramaut while the term janbiyya begins in southern Arabia temporally at about Dhufar. Here the very large Wahhabi janbiyyas of short sword type become 'subak' in the Hejaz; 'sabik' in Asir; and 'sabiki' in the Yeman borders in the south.

In Rwala the long broad blade type is 'gdaimi' while the shorter broad blade khanjar is still called that.

In the Nejd, the terms 'giddamiyyah' and 'sibriyyah' are used by the Badu, but it is unclear on the meaning exactly, probably the terms are used along with khanjar to qualify size perhaps.

In the Middle East, it seems the khanjar term is used for some of the dagger forms, but as far as larger dagger type swords I think of the Qama for one, which can reach remarkable proportions. In India there are khanjar hilt swords whose blades are long and recurved like pesh kabz, but the term applied I am not sure of.

While I am sure others out there have far more information, I just added these for starters, and look forward to any corrections applicable.

All the best,
Jim

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 07:28 AM

Hi Jim and thanks for those comments. What I am trying to establish, is if there is a DIFFERENT term used for the shorter and longer versions of what are variously described as SABIKI, SABAK, DHARIA etc, depending on who's book you are reading. The term WAHABITE is purely (as far as I am aware) a term of "convenience" used to loosely describe these long Jambiya, which (I assume) were used by the Wahabite amongst others.
The name of the "normal" daggers of Arabia such as Khanjar etc are not at issue here.
Regards Stu

A. G. Maisey · 14th June 2010, 08:48 AM

Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once.

My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law.

We have already defined it.

In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies.

I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests.

For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once.

My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law.

We have already defined it.

In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies.

I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests.

For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

No appology needed Alan. I do realise that laws of countries define what is regarded as a sword and what is regarded as a dagger, and this of course does vary between countries.
What I am trying to establish is 1: What in collecting circles these long Jambiya are regarded as i.e when does a dagger become a sword. and 2 (and probably more importantly):Is there a specific name attached to these in Arabia, to differenciate between the dagger and the sword or are they NOT differenciated between in term of their name.
Stu

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 03:35 PM

Hi Stu,
Actually the information you are seeking is very much in line with the constant bane of ethnographic weapons study, which is terminology, semantics and nomenclature. It is important to note of course that western transliteration has often played a hand in the adoptive terms for many weapons forms, the instance with 'shamshir' for example.

You have posed the question well, and I look forward to forthcoming information, while I added the variations for the Arabian dagger terms as a kind of benchmark for addition. As I pointed out with the reference to the Badu in the northern Nejd, they use the terms 'giddamiyyah' or 'sibriyyah' in describing the blade size, and I would presume the term is applied in conjuction with 'khanjar' to qualify the description. I also noted that in Rwala the longer weapon is termed 'gdaimi' while the short is still a 'khanjar'.
Here it seems, a separate term is used, just as you had noted your hopes in discovering.

I believe the first notes of the term Wahabbite were likely from Sir Richard Burton's amazing incursion (in disguise) into the Hejaz and other parts of Arabia in the mid 19th century. It seems that his notes defined the terms sabiki in these references as well, though the other classifications noted are from Elgood and his "Arms and Armour of Arabia". It seems that in the case of sabak (i) and sabik for these extremely large knife/daggers which reach sword proportions, the term is used in lieu of janbiyya.
To further illustrate the complexity here, the exhibition catalog from Riyadh (1991) describes these large daggers as 'Dharia' with the qualification of 'malsa' and 'shbeyl' sub terms, noting the blade types such as beyd and nafihi, with what must be terms of many subdivisions according to both tribes and regions.

It is important to remember that varying references will indeed use a number of different terms in describing these weapons, much in the same manner as individuals in different areas will lean toward the terms used in thier native language in some cases. For example, someone from Oman although in the Hejaz and describing a dagger will likely call it a khanjar.

I understand you are trying to determine if there are specific terms for larger swordlike daggers in certain areas, and discovering that will likely need to be addressed by individuals fluent in the dialects and lexicons of defined regions.
The notes I have presented are simply a few examples of what seemed to be pertinant, and I hope others come in here...this really is a quite valid topic worth pursuing.

While it seems that much of this would be irrelevant and frustratingly elusive data, it does play an important role in better understanding more specifically what weapons are being referred to in narrative descriptions, especially those contemporary from earlier times.

In the legal sense, which Alan has well addressed, the unfortunate results of misnomers in legal text pertaining to weapons seems excruciatingly apparant.

Excellent topic Stu!

All best regards,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 14th June 2010, 03:44 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

kahnjar1 · 14th June 2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Stu,
Actually the information you are seeking is very much in line with the constant bane of ethnographic weapons study, which is terminology, semantics and nomenclature. It is important to note of course that western transliteration has often played a hand in the adoptive terms for many weapons forms, the instance with 'shamshir' for example.

You have posed the question well, and I look forward to forthcoming information, while I added the variations for the Arabian dagger terms as a kind of benchmark for addition. As I pointed out with the reference to the Badu in the northern Nejd, they use the terms 'giddamiyyah' or 'sibriyyah' in describing the blade size, and I would presume the term is applied in conjuction with 'khanjar' to qualify the description. I also noted that in Rwala the longer weapon is termed 'gdaimi' while the short is still a 'khanjar'.
Here it seems, a separate term is used, just as you had noted your hopes in discovering.

I believe the first notes of the term Wahabbite were likely from Sir Richard Burton's amazing incursion (in disguise) into the Hejaz and other parts of Arabia in the mid 19th century. It seems that his notes defined the terms sabiki in these references as well, though the other classifications noted are from Elgood and his "Arms and Armour of Arabia". It seems that in the case of sabak (i) and sabik for these extremely large knife/daggers which reach sword proportions, the term is used in lieu of janbiyya.
To further illustrate the complexity here, the exhibition catalog from Riyadh (1991) describes these large daggers as 'Dharia' with the qualification of 'malsa' and 'shbeyl' sub terms, noting the blade types such as beyd and nafihi, with what must be terms of many subdivisions according to both tribes and regions.

It is important to remember that varying references will indeed use a number of different terms in describing these weapons, much in the same manner as individuals in different areas will lean toward the terms used in thier native language in some cases. For example, someone from Oman although in the Hejaz and describing a dagger will likely call it a khanjar.

I understand you are trying to determine if there are specific terms for larger swordlike daggers in certain areas, and discovering that will likely need to be addressed by individuals fluent in the dialects and lexicons of defined regions.
The notes I have presented are simply a few examples of what seemed to be pertinant, and I hope others come in here...this really is a quite valid topic worth pursuing.

While it seems that much of this would be irrelevant and frustratingly elusive data, it does play an important role in better understanding more specifically what weapons are being referred to in narrative descriptions, especially those contemporary from earlier times.

In the legal sense, which Alan has well addressed, the unfortunate results of misnomers in legal text pertaining to weapons seems excruciatingly apparant.

Excellent topic Stu!

All best regards,
Jim

Thank you Jim for your (as usual) thorough and informative reply. Gene (Atlantia) and I were discussing our collections by private email when he asked me the question about length of Jambiya and where they became swords. Interesting how an apparently insignificant question can generate so much opinion. Its a bit like the "country of origin" issue of Arabian Jambiya. DOM was of the opinion the "counry borders" mean nothing in this area, and Tribal origins are the important thing. I have to agree with this, but that is another subject. As you say, we in the West tend to label things to suit us, because that is what we consider important. I Arabia, and I guess in many other cultures, that is not the case.
Stu

ALEX · 14th June 2010, 08:54 PM

I also think the length/size of the sword or dagger does not change the classification/type, considering the same proportions!!! As an example, here's a Khyber, very large one, almost of a sword length. It is similar in shape with smaller Khybers, so I'd call it a Khyber sword, opposite to Khyber dagger/knife. However, as already pointed out - there are different local names for variations of similar type, but they're not determined only by size, but by design and proportions.

fearn · 14th June 2010, 11:15 PM

I'm tempted to label these types of discussions "machete arguments," as in: "Is a machete a sword or a knife?"

The basic problem with any of these discussions is that swords and knives are defined within one culture, primarily by inferring general traits from known examples. Then we try to fit other people's inventions into these categories, based on whatever rules we created.

As Mr. Maisey pointed out with those Australian rules, in Australian customs, any weapon that is two-edged and 39 cm long is not a dagger, nor is anything that can't be readily concealed on a normal person. My apologies, but it is very hard not to become sarcastic about that definition. I keep wondering whether I'd get arrested for trying to hide a swordfish bill down my pants, if some cop decided to call it a dagger.

The Australian rules are derived from whatever examples the rule-makers found objectionable, and I laid out another rule "the chop test" that depended on function rather than shape and size. But all of these are rules we make up from the blades we handle or read about. They don't really answer the question, they just change the argument to one about rules rather than one about blades.

So what's the answer? There is none. A machete is a sword, and a machete is a knife. Depends on who is arguing which side.

Best,

F

kahnjar1 · 15th June 2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

No appology needed Alan. I do realise that laws of countries define what is regarded as a sword and what is regarded as a dagger, and this of course does vary between countries.
What I am trying to establish is 1: What in collecting circles these long Jambiya are regarded as i.e when does a dagger become a sword. and 2 (and probably more importantly):Is there a specific name attached to these in Arabia, to differenciate between the dagger and the sword or are they NOT differenciated between in term of their name.
Stu

I think things are getting a bit complicated here so I will reiterate the two questions which I would REALLY like answered.
1:What in collecting circles are these very long Jambiya regarded as.....Dagger or Sword?
2:Is there a specific name (which may vary by area) used in Arabia to differenciate between the dagger length and the much longer ones of sword/small sword length?
WE COLLECTORS DO NOT (MOSTLY) LIVE IN THE AREA, AND AS HAS BEEN STATED, TEND TO CALL ITEMS BY THEIR WESTERN NAME.
Stu

fearn · 15th June 2010, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

I think things are getting a bit complicated here so I will reiterate the two questions which I would REALLY like answered.
1:What in collecting circles are these very long Jambiya regarded as.....Dagger or Sword?
2:Is there a specific name (which may vary by area) used in Arabia to differenciate between the dagger length and the much longer ones of sword/small sword length?
WE COLLECTORS DO NOT (MOSTLY) LIVE IN THE AREA, AND AS HAS BEEN STATED, TEND TO CALL ITEMS BY THEIR WESTERN NAME.
Stu

Speaking as an expert only on the website, I would say the answers are:

1. It's a jambiya, regardless of length. All else turns on the question of what your rules for sword and dagger are, and these very subjective and highly contingent rules vary between people and jurisdictions.
2. Jim has suggested sabaki for the longer blades in Wahhabi dominant areas. I'm not enough of an expert to know whether this is a term unique to Wahhabist areas, or a word used throughout the jambiya's "native range."

Best,

F

ward · 15th June 2010, 08:56 PM

I might be missing something here but shouldnt these weapons be consdered sword or daggers or whatever based on how they are used? Pesh Qabz means foregrip in Persian. It tells you how the knife was held. Extrapolating that you figure out the name exists because it's held differently than other daggers. As for swords in Middle East and most Asia, they are for cutting in various ways not thrusting. I am NOT saying they were never used to thrust just that their main use is cutting. Daggers are usually used for thrusting in that area. Not always like I said, but usually. Some cultures ahd rules about whether a dagger could be used for thrusting too, but that is pretty unusual and I didn't want to muddy the waters with that.

fearn · 15th June 2010, 10:38 PM

Ward,

A sword can be used to thrust (rapier) or cut (broadsword), or slice (saber), or chop (cutlass).

Neat thing? These are all ENGLISH words. Dagger is similarly an ENGLISH word.

The problem here is translation. Even among people who speak English, sword and dagger are defined differently, often subjectively, and often for different and contradictory purposes. The Australian law that Alan quoted above isn't THE definition, it's a rule for a policeman. Collectors will see things differently.

Who's right? No one is. The issue is translation. Sword and dagger are as much culture-bound concepts as jambiya. An English dagger isn't quite the same thing as a Philippine daga, although they have similar cultural and linguistic roots.

We get stuck, because English is the common language for the collectors who post here, and without thinking, we tend to assume that concepts in English are the standard to which everything must be translated. That doesn't work so well in practice. A jambiya isn't just an ornamented hunk of steel, it is a tool and an identity symbol. If you want to understand it, you need to know something about the Muslim culture it's embedded in.

As for uses, I'll admit that the only uses I've ever seen for a jambiya (on TV) are: a) dancing (as Khanjar showed above) and b) clearing debris out of a qanat (link) so that the water would flow freely (and I admire the men who waded through kilometers of muddy water to do the clearing). If I was to stupidly assume that that was all you could do with a jambiya, I'd suggest both that length was irrelevant and that calling it a sword was silly. Similarly, it's also myopic to assume that fighting is the only real function for a jambiya, and that is how it should be categorized in English: sword or dagger. It's a jambiya. Traduttore traditore.

Best,

F

A. G. Maisey · 16th June 2010, 12:30 AM

Very nicely put Fearn.

I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what you have written.

However, now that you have so clearly defined the situation, I believe that you have opened the door for a look at this situation from a different perspective.

If we take, let us say, the jambiya as an example, we have an object that in its society of origin has a certain nature, however, once it moves outside that society and becomes an object for collection by people in a different society, the nature of the object changes.

In the new society where that jambiya finds itself, that is, the society of collectors of jambiyas living in places far removed from its point of origin, it is no longer looked at, nor thought about in the same way that it was in its society of origin. The collectors have made it their own, and have given it a nature that they can understand, which is based upon their own cultural frame of reference.

In the context of the society in which the jambiya now finds itself, it may be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for the members of that society to categorise it in accordance with their understanding of it, based upon their own frame of reference.

Accordingly, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a collector of jambiyas living in, say, New York, to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, because that is the way in which he understands it.

If some of those jambiya are a little too long to fit comfortably within the collector's cultural perception of a dagger, then the collector may certainly categorise these longer jambiyas as swords.

Why should he not do so?

He has removed the object from the cultural frame of reference within which it is understood in a certain way, and placed it within a different frame of reference.

Why should he not observe the rules which apply within that new frame of reference?

To summarise:-

if a collector wishes to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, then let that collector decide at what point his dagger becomes a sword, his decision will be as relevant for a jambiya as it will be for any weapon from his own culture, as he is using a frame of reference based in a culture that differs from the culture in which the jambiya originated.

kronckew · 16th June 2010, 06:16 AM

ah, yes as i mentioned 'that which we call a rose ...'. even that had hidden meaning. shakespeare's rival theatre in london was 'the rose', and had notoriously stinky sanitary facilities...

in order to have meaning, two people need to be in on the secret. words are for communicating, so we need at least two people to agree on the definition. preferably more. i could call a gladius a quibble, but no one else would know what i meant, the sound of one hand clapping, i add the second hand by calling it a 'short sword' for those who never heard of the roman gladii. saves ambiguity. with most people, i could call it a 'long knife' with about the same meaning, but 'short sword' carries more meaning to more knowledgeable people as well as those less interested than we are.

as a westerner, i also like to think of them as knives, daggers, short swords, swords etc. in addition to their name from their locale of origin. it also has more meaning to those outside the fraternity when trying to convey the meaning to them.

and so the argument continues, we are all right, and simultaneously all wrong.

the wurme eating it's own tail.

fearn · 16th June 2010, 05:21 PM

And it also depends on a few other things, such as what you're trying to communicate.

Alan's got a great point: a jambiya, in the collection of an English-speaking collector, can be a knife, dagger, or sword. Functionally? For most of us, the proper function of daggers and swords is to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp, and very few of us even practice martial arts with our blades, let alone hurt people with them. So functionally, call it what you want. It's going to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp regardless of what you call it.

As for communication, the other point here is that most people here are quite sure that they know what the following terms mean: knife, dagger, short sword, sword. Anyone disagree, besides me?

If we did an exhaustive poll, I think we'd find that we would agree on perhaps 80 percent of cases. If I deliberately chose machetes, long knives, dhas, and similar things that defy easy categorization, I suspect the number of agreements would plummet.

This is not a plea for standardization of terms. Rather it simply points out that we can get into endless arguments, not about the weapons, but about differences in personal definitions and mis-communication based on biases we're not even aware that we have. I'd suggest the best solution to these problems is to recognize when we're in such arguments, laugh, and move on. I'm also quite sure that others will disagree with me on this too, and that's one reason why I keep reading this board.

Best,

F

13th June 2010, 08:16 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, 12:37 PM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,181	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 12:51 PM.

13th June 2010, 11:34 PM	#8
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 12:56 AM. Reason: clarification

14th June 2010, 08:54 PM	#19
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	I also think the length/size of the sword or dagger does not change the classification/type, considering the same proportions!!! As an example, here's a Khyber, very large one, almost of a sword length. It is similar in shape with smaller Khybers, so I'd call it a Khyber sword, opposite to Khyber dagger/knife. However, as already pointed out - there are different local names for variations of similar type, but they're not determined only by size, but by design and proportions. Attached Images

16th June 2010, 06:16 AM	#26
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,181	ah, yes as i mentioned 'that which we call a rose ...'. even that had hidden meaning. shakespeare's rival theatre in london was 'the rose', and had notoriously stinky sanitary facilities... in order to have meaning, two people need to be in on the secret. words are for communicating, so we need at least two people to agree on the definition. preferably more. i could call a gladius a quibble, but no one else would know what i meant, the sound of one hand clapping, i add the second hand by calling it a 'short sword' for those who never heard of the roman gladii. saves ambiguity. with most people, i could call it a 'long knife' with about the same meaning, but 'short sword' carries more meaning to more knowledgeable people as well as those less interested than we are. as a westerner, i also like to think of them as knives, daggers, short swords, swords etc. in addition to their name from their locale of origin. it also has more meaning to those outside the fraternity when trying to convey the meaning to them. and so the argument continues, we are all right, and simultaneously all wrong. the wurme eating it's own tail. Last edited by kronckew; 16th June 2010 at 06:33 AM.

13th June 2010, 10:27 AM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,181	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, 11:39 AM	#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, 11:48 AM	#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, 04:36 PM	#7
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, 12:38 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	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, 04:10 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,888	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.

14th June 2010, 07:28 AM	#13
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,739	Hi Jim and thanks for those comments. What I am trying to establish, is if there is a DIFFERENT term used for the shorter and longer versions of what are variously described as SABIKI, SABAK, DHARIA etc, depending on who's book you are reading. The term WAHABITE is purely (as far as I am aware) a term of "convenience" used to loosely describe these long Jambiya, which (I assume) were used by the Wahabite amongst others. The name of the "normal" daggers of Arabia such as Khanjar etc are not at issue here. Regards Stu

14th June 2010, 08:48 AM	#14
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,888	Yes Stu, I'm very well aware that importation and prohibition have been discussed at length more than once. My post is not an attempt to hijack this thread, I was merely pointing out that in respect of Australia, the length and nature of a dagger is written into law. We have already defined it. In other places that definition could well be different, and in fact, it could well be something that is unable to be defined within the mindset of some societies. I do most humbly apologise if I have created undue diversion and disrupted anybody's train of thought, however, be aware:- I will at the slightest encouragement continue to raise legal matters which have any bearing upon our shared interests. For some of us, our only defence against the lawmakers is constant vigilance.

14th June 2010, 03:35 PM	#16
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Hi Stu, Actually the information you are seeking is very much in line with the constant bane of ethnographic weapons study, which is terminology, semantics and nomenclature. It is important to note of course that western transliteration has often played a hand in the adoptive terms for many weapons forms, the instance with 'shamshir' for example. You have posed the question well, and I look forward to forthcoming information, while I added the variations for the Arabian dagger terms as a kind of benchmark for addition. As I pointed out with the reference to the Badu in the northern Nejd, they use the terms 'giddamiyyah' or 'sibriyyah' in describing the blade size, and I would presume the term is applied in conjuction with 'khanjar' to qualify the description. I also noted that in Rwala the longer weapon is termed 'gdaimi' while the short is still a 'khanjar'. Here it seems, a separate term is used, just as you had noted your hopes in discovering. I believe the first notes of the term Wahabbite were likely from Sir Richard Burton's amazing incursion (in disguise) into the Hejaz and other parts of Arabia in the mid 19th century. It seems that his notes defined the terms sabiki in these references as well, though the other classifications noted are from Elgood and his "Arms and Armour of Arabia". It seems that in the case of sabak (i) and sabik for these extremely large knife/daggers which reach sword proportions, the term is used in lieu of janbiyya. To further illustrate the complexity here, the exhibition catalog from Riyadh (1991) describes these large daggers as 'Dharia' with the qualification of 'malsa' and 'shbeyl' sub terms, noting the blade types such as beyd and nafihi, with what must be terms of many subdivisions according to both tribes and regions. It is important to remember that varying references will indeed use a number of different terms in describing these weapons, much in the same manner as individuals in different areas will lean toward the terms used in thier native language in some cases. For example, someone from Oman although in the Hejaz and describing a dagger will likely call it a khanjar. I understand you are trying to determine if there are specific terms for larger swordlike daggers in certain areas, and discovering that will likely need to be addressed by individuals fluent in the dialects and lexicons of defined regions. The notes I have presented are simply a few examples of what seemed to be pertinant, and I hope others come in here...this really is a quite valid topic worth pursuing. While it seems that much of this would be irrelevant and frustratingly elusive data, it does play an important role in better understanding more specifically what weapons are being referred to in narrative descriptions, especially those contemporary from earlier times. In the legal sense, which Alan has well addressed, the unfortunate results of misnomers in legal text pertaining to weapons seems excruciatingly apparant. Excellent topic Stu! All best regards, Jim

14th June 2010, 11:15 PM	#20
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	I'm tempted to label these types of discussions "machete arguments," as in: "Is a machete a sword or a knife?" The basic problem with any of these discussions is that swords and knives are defined within one culture, primarily by inferring general traits from known examples. Then we try to fit other people's inventions into these categories, based on whatever rules we created. As Mr. Maisey pointed out with those Australian rules, in Australian customs, any weapon that is two-edged and 39 cm long is not a dagger, nor is anything that can't be readily concealed on a normal person. My apologies, but it is very hard not to become sarcastic about that definition. I keep wondering whether I'd get arrested for trying to hide a swordfish bill down my pants, if some cop decided to call it a dagger. The Australian rules are derived from whatever examples the rule-makers found objectionable, and I laid out another rule "the chop test" that depended on function rather than shape and size. But all of these are rules we make up from the blades we handle or read about. They don't really answer the question, they just change the argument to one about rules rather than one about blades. So what's the answer? There is none. A machete is a sword, and a machete is a knife. Depends on who is arguing which side. Best, F

15th June 2010, 08:56 PM	#23
ward Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 637	I might be missing something here but shouldnt these weapons be consdered sword or daggers or whatever based on how they are used? Pesh Qabz means foregrip in Persian. It tells you how the knife was held. Extrapolating that you figure out the name exists because it's held differently than other daggers. As for swords in Middle East and most Asia, they are for cutting in various ways not thrusting. I am NOT saying they were never used to thrust just that their main use is cutting. Daggers are usually used for thrusting in that area. Not always like I said, but usually. Some cultures ahd rules about whether a dagger could be used for thrusting too, but that is pretty unusual and I didn't want to muddy the waters with that.

15th June 2010, 10:38 PM	#24
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Ward, A sword can be used to thrust (rapier) or cut (broadsword), or slice (saber), or chop (cutlass). Neat thing? These are all ENGLISH words. Dagger is similarly an ENGLISH word. The problem here is translation. Even among people who speak English, sword and dagger are defined differently, often subjectively, and often for different and contradictory purposes. The Australian law that Alan quoted above isn't THE definition, it's a rule for a policeman. Collectors will see things differently. Who's right? No one is. The issue is translation. Sword and dagger are as much culture-bound concepts as jambiya. An English dagger isn't quite the same thing as a Philippine daga, although they have similar cultural and linguistic roots. We get stuck, because English is the common language for the collectors who post here, and without thinking, we tend to assume that concepts in English are the standard to which everything must be translated. That doesn't work so well in practice. A jambiya isn't just an ornamented hunk of steel, it is a tool and an identity symbol. If you want to understand it, you need to know something about the Muslim culture it's embedded in. As for uses, I'll admit that the only uses I've ever seen for a jambiya (on TV) are: a) dancing (as Khanjar showed above) and b) clearing debris out of a qanat (link) so that the water would flow freely (and I admire the men who waded through kilometers of muddy water to do the clearing). If I was to stupidly assume that that was all you could do with a jambiya, I'd suggest both that length was irrelevant and that calling it a sword was silly. Similarly, it's also myopic to assume that fighting is the only real function for a jambiya, and that is how it should be categorized in English: sword or dagger. It's a jambiya. Traduttore traditore. Best, F

16th June 2010, 12:30 AM	#25
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,888	Very nicely put Fearn. I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what you have written. However, now that you have so clearly defined the situation, I believe that you have opened the door for a look at this situation from a different perspective. If we take, let us say, the jambiya as an example, we have an object that in its society of origin has a certain nature, however, once it moves outside that society and becomes an object for collection by people in a different society, the nature of the object changes. In the new society where that jambiya finds itself, that is, the society of collectors of jambiyas living in places far removed from its point of origin, it is no longer looked at, nor thought about in the same way that it was in its society of origin. The collectors have made it their own, and have given it a nature that they can understand, which is based upon their own cultural frame of reference. In the context of the society in which the jambiya now finds itself, it may be argued that it is perfectly legitimate for the members of that society to categorise it in accordance with their understanding of it, based upon their own frame of reference. Accordingly, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a collector of jambiyas living in, say, New York, to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, because that is the way in which he understands it. If some of those jambiya are a little too long to fit comfortably within the collector's cultural perception of a dagger, then the collector may certainly categorise these longer jambiyas as swords. Why should he not do so? He has removed the object from the cultural frame of reference within which it is understood in a certain way, and placed it within a different frame of reference. Why should he not observe the rules which apply within that new frame of reference? To summarise:- if a collector wishes to refer to a jambiya as a dagger, then let that collector decide at what point his dagger becomes a sword, his decision will be as relevant for a jambiya as it will be for any weapon from his own culture, as he is using a frame of reference based in a culture that differs from the culture in which the jambiya originated.

16th June 2010, 05:21 PM	#27
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	And it also depends on a few other things, such as what you're trying to communicate. Alan's got a great point: a jambiya, in the collection of an English-speaking collector, can be a knife, dagger, or sword. Functionally? For most of us, the proper function of daggers and swords is to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp, and very few of us even practice martial arts with our blades, let alone hurt people with them. So functionally, call it what you want. It's going to lie around looking gorgeous and sharp regardless of what you call it. As for communication, the other point here is that most people here are quite sure that they know what the following terms mean: knife, dagger, short sword, sword. Anyone disagree, besides me? If we did an exhaustive poll, I think we'd find that we would agree on perhaps 80 percent of cases. If I deliberately chose machetes, long knives, dhas, and similar things that defy easy categorization, I suspect the number of agreements would plummet. This is not a plea for standardization of terms. Rather it simply points out that we can get into endless arguments, not about the weapons, but about differences in personal definitions and mis-communication based on biases we're not even aware that we have. I'd suggest the best solution to these problems is to recognize when we're in such arguments, laugh, and move on. I'm also quite sure that others will disagree with me on this too, and that's one reason why I keep reading this board. Best, F