Translation of Indian blade inscription

Jens Nordlunde · 25th February 2012, 09:24 AM

Alan, it is commonly used on this forum, when a detail of a weapon is shown for discussion, also to show the whole weapon. The detail shown does not help me to find out from where the dagger comes, as my knowledge of the language shown on the detail, is very little, and does not give me a clear indication from where it comes, a picture of the whole dagger might have helped.

I use a lot of time researching and answering questions from other collectors, so your comment on my lack of help in this case, is taken with a

.

Jens

A. G. Maisey · 25th February 2012, 11:49 AM

Jens, your reaction to my overly polite post is very surprising to me.
I have not commented in even the slightest degree upon your assistance, nor lack of it.

I have commented in general terms upon what I perceive to be a rather peculiar attitude. I am extremely familiar with this attitude, and it is one that has always mystified me.

I am also familiar with the usual practice of posting a photo of an entire piece, and the sticky that requests this, and this was the reason for my apology for being unable to comply with this practice. I would have thought that no further comment would have been required in regard to this.

The query I posted concerns script. Only script, nothing else. The fact that it is on a weapon is totally irrelevant, it might just as well have been on a piece of paper. If it can be read, it can be read: if cannot be read, then it cannot be read.

My friend was not asking to be told where this object was from, nor what it was called, nor how old it was, he was simply asking if the script could be read. It appears it cannot be read. End of story.

I thank you most sincerely for your efforts in attempting to read this script, but I accept that this is beyond you, as many things are equally beyond myself, and all of us. Since you cannot read it, then it is clear that you are not withholding any assistance, so how is it possible that I could make any sort of remark that referred to your lack of assistance? I'm sure you have done the best you could, and again I thank you for your efforts.

Emanuel · 28th February 2012, 02:07 AM

Hello Alan,

A friend's father identified the script as indeed being Kannada. The translation is attached.

First picture (top)

Quote:

I think this is in Kannada. It says: “Choo Ra Sam. 47” (Here abbreviated ‘Sam’ stands for ‘Samvatsar’ or year. ‘Choo Ra’ could be name ‘Shoora’ ( or valiant person)

Second picture (bottom) writing is oriented upside down

Quote:

See this picture through a mirror. Now it looks as below. (I rotated the picture clockwise 360 degree)

In Kannada it reads as follows:
“Shri Krishna Sam. 1163” (Shri Krishna Samvatsar 1163) (or Sri Krishna. Year 1163)

PS: I am not 100% sure whether my interpretation is correct.

The "choo ra" mention is interesting. We use this name for the smaller variant of these pesh-kabz/karud type daggers, but we've heard that this word is not used locally used. Perhaps the name was derived by some early collector from a similar inscription.

Regards,
Emanuel

A. G. Maisey · 28th February 2012, 02:29 AM

I thank you most sincerely for the time and effort you have taken in providing this translation, Emanuel, and I offer my friend's thanks on his behalf.

Do we know what the year is in our calendar?

Emanuel · 28th February 2012, 02:46 AM

My pleasure Alan.

1163 in the Malayalam calendar seems to correspond to 1988 Gregorian

If correct, then either the inscription is a later addition to the blade, or the whole thing is of recent manufacture - not unlikely.

A. G. Maisey · 28th February 2012, 09:34 AM

Again I thank you Emanuel, however, I feel there may be some degree of error in the dating.

As I said, I know this dagger. In fact I know it very well, until a few years go it belonged to me, before me it belonged to my grandfather, and he purchased it before 1920, on the way home from WWI.

It is a genuinely old dagger, and has been in Australia since before 1920, so I rather think the dating may be just a little bit off the mark.

Jim McDougall · 28th February 2012, 06:33 PM

I must add my own perspective on the apparant source of contention here, as I was the one who initiated the thread 'requesting' that when asking for translation assistance, the entire weapon be shown along with the detail showing the inscription or characters to be assessed.
The reason for this is that, as Jens has well noted, the context in which the inscription appears indeed does very much often carry important clues which relate to translation of inscriptions.

In many cases this more comprehensive information offers those who are working at assisting with what sometimes, actually often, can be be extremely esoteric material. It is distinctly a courtesy to assist those one is calling upon to offer them all help possible as well. I was once scolded severely by a very well known academic figure in an extremely prestigious institution when I asked him for help identifying an unusual sword, and was ill advised by a colleague not to tell him about what research I had already completed so as not to set preconceived notions in his response. This was not only foolish advice but profoundly discourteous, and when I inadvertantly noted my previous research in subsequent communication he pretty much exploded, and noted my omission had cost him many extra hours of precious time.

We openly offer assistance here in our goal of sharing information and learning together, in order to advance the study of these weapons and preserve thier history. To omit the context of sometimes important detail in inscriptions found on these weapons denies the members and readers the opportunity to learn in many cases. This is particularly true with ethnographic weapons, as obviously the nature of the weapon carrying the inscription can often have distinct bearing.
For example, in this case the weapon is described as a 'pesh kabz' which is a dagger typically known to be indiginous to the northern regions in India. Here the inscription appears to be in a southern language, whether Kannada or associated dialect, and tells us that the diffusion of these was indeed that far south. Obviously we already know this is the case, as with many Indian weapon forms, but it not only bolsters the support for this case, but can sometimes even identify regional attribution and important date establishing the period for the weapons presence there.

I will say that I often find it disagreeable when someone posts a weapon, in a 'here it is' kind of post with simply photos and cursory note on its type, mostly a thread title. If one has a weapon to inquire on, it does seem reasonable that as weapons collectors, one usually has books or references and would as a matter of simple curiosity at least tried to discover what the weapon is. I have the utmost regard for the majority who do post here and follow that process, as well as including the information at hand thus far and actually composing a well founded query. Since these are discussion forums, I consider laconic and presumptive blurbs less than helpful and in degree discourteous, as if those to whom the query is directed are not worthy of the requestors 'valuable' time. I consider everyone who posts here, and follows these simple elements of courtesy more than worth the many and countless hours I spend researching in order to respond in any way I can.

Thats what its about guys, courtesy and respect, two words I try very much to live by. Having said that, I would like to say that, on a different subject, the apparant misunderstanding here between Jens and Alan is more a result of interpretation of the situation at hand, and as often the case, the unfortunate lack of qualifying demeanor which is often a factor in todays computer oriented interchange. These two gentlemen are among the most highly respected members here, and I commend them both for the impressive and gentlemanly discourse they have observed in handling this misunderstanding.

Also, Chris and Emanuel, thank you both for the outstanding assistance with this translation and excellent participation. Well done everybody!!!!

Very best regards,
Jim

28th February 2012, 06:33 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	I must add my own perspective on the apparant source of contention here, as I was the one who initiated the thread 'requesting' that when asking for translation assistance, the entire weapon be shown along with the detail showing the inscription or characters to be assessed. The reason for this is that, as Jens has well noted, the context in which the inscription appears indeed does very much often carry important clues which relate to translation of inscriptions. In many cases this more comprehensive information offers those who are working at assisting with what sometimes, actually often, can be be extremely esoteric material. It is distinctly a courtesy to assist those one is calling upon to offer them all help possible as well. I was once scolded severely by a very well known academic figure in an extremely prestigious institution when I asked him for help identifying an unusual sword, and was ill advised by a colleague not to tell him about what research I had already completed so as not to set preconceived notions in his response. This was not only foolish advice but profoundly discourteous, and when I inadvertantly noted my previous research in subsequent communication he pretty much exploded, and noted my omission had cost him many extra hours of precious time. We openly offer assistance here in our goal of sharing information and learning together, in order to advance the study of these weapons and preserve thier history. To omit the context of sometimes important detail in inscriptions found on these weapons denies the members and readers the opportunity to learn in many cases. This is particularly true with ethnographic weapons, as obviously the nature of the weapon carrying the inscription can often have distinct bearing. For example, in this case the weapon is described as a 'pesh kabz' which is a dagger typically known to be indiginous to the northern regions in India. Here the inscription appears to be in a southern language, whether Kannada or associated dialect, and tells us that the diffusion of these was indeed that far south. Obviously we already know this is the case, as with many Indian weapon forms, but it not only bolsters the support for this case, but can sometimes even identify regional attribution and important date establishing the period for the weapons presence there. I will say that I often find it disagreeable when someone posts a weapon, in a 'here it is' kind of post with simply photos and cursory note on its type, mostly a thread title. If one has a weapon to inquire on, it does seem reasonable that as weapons collectors, one usually has books or references and would as a matter of simple curiosity at least tried to discover what the weapon is. I have the utmost regard for the majority who do post here and follow that process, as well as including the information at hand thus far and actually composing a well founded query. Since these are discussion forums, I consider laconic and presumptive blurbs less than helpful and in degree discourteous, as if those to whom the query is directed are not worthy of the requestors 'valuable' time. I consider everyone who posts here, and follows these simple elements of courtesy more than worth the many and countless hours I spend researching in order to respond in any way I can. Thats what its about guys, courtesy and respect, two words I try very much to live by. Having said that, I would like to say that, on a different subject, the apparant misunderstanding here between Jens and Alan is more a result of interpretation of the situation at hand, and as often the case, the unfortunate lack of qualifying demeanor which is often a factor in todays computer oriented interchange. These two gentlemen are among the most highly respected members here, and I commend them both for the impressive and gentlemanly discourse they have observed in handling this misunderstanding. Also, Chris and Emanuel, thank you both for the outstanding assistance with this translation and excellent participation. Well done everybody!!!! Very best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 28th February 2012 at 08:55 PM.

25th February 2012, 09:24 AM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Alan, it is commonly used on this forum, when a detail of a weapon is shown for discussion, also to show the whole weapon. The detail shown does not help me to find out from where the dagger comes, as my knowledge of the language shown on the detail, is very little, and does not give me a clear indication from where it comes, a picture of the whole dagger might have helped. I use a lot of time researching and answering questions from other collectors, so your comment on my lack of help in this case, is taken with a . Jens

25th February 2012, 11:49 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Jens, your reaction to my overly polite post is very surprising to me. I have not commented in even the slightest degree upon your assistance, nor lack of it. I have commented in general terms upon what I perceive to be a rather peculiar attitude. I am extremely familiar with this attitude, and it is one that has always mystified me. I am also familiar with the usual practice of posting a photo of an entire piece, and the sticky that requests this, and this was the reason for my apology for being unable to comply with this practice. I would have thought that no further comment would have been required in regard to this. The query I posted concerns script. Only script, nothing else. The fact that it is on a weapon is totally irrelevant, it might just as well have been on a piece of paper. If it can be read, it can be read: if cannot be read, then it cannot be read. My friend was not asking to be told where this object was from, nor what it was called, nor how old it was, he was simply asking if the script could be read. It appears it cannot be read. End of story. I thank you most sincerely for your efforts in attempting to read this script, but I accept that this is beyond you, as many things are equally beyond myself, and all of us. Since you cannot read it, then it is clear that you are not withholding any assistance, so how is it possible that I could make any sort of remark that referred to your lack of assistance? I'm sure you have done the best you could, and again I thank you for your efforts.

28th February 2012, 02:29 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I thank you most sincerely for the time and effort you have taken in providing this translation, Emanuel, and I offer my friend's thanks on his behalf. Do we know what the year is in our calendar?

28th February 2012, 02:46 AM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	My pleasure Alan. 1163 in the Malayalam calendar seems to correspond to 1988 Gregorian If correct, then either the inscription is a later addition to the blade, or the whole thing is of recent manufacture - not unlikely.

28th February 2012, 09:34 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Again I thank you Emanuel, however, I feel there may be some degree of error in the dating. As I said, I know this dagger. In fact I know it very well, until a few years go it belonged to me, before me it belonged to my grandfather, and he purchased it before 1920, on the way home from WWI. It is a genuinely old dagger, and has been in Australia since before 1920, so I rather think the dating may be just a little bit off the mark.